Farsight's reason that there are no black hole singularities

[Farsight]

I know why there are no black hole singularities. It's crushingly simple. But the explanation is deemed to be pseudoscience, so I can't share it here.

[Martin]

Hello Farsight,

what are your arguments that black hole singularities do not exist in nature?

 

(Personally I have never thought they did, since a singularity is a breakdown in a manmade theory and is normally cured by improving the theory. Singularities do not exist in nature so to speak by definition. There have been singularities in older theories in many branches of physics, some of which have been cured, but AFAIK no singularity has ever been observed to actually exist in nature.)

 

However you say you have REASONS why a certain type of singularity does not exist, and you say these reasons are SPECULATIVE. Therefore, to allow open discussion, I have moved your post to this forum and I am inviting you to present your reasons if you find it convenient and wish to do so.

 

thanks in advance

[someguy]

if you have nothing to say then shutup. "i have a reason balck holes exist but i can't say it here" come on. sooo many people start a post by saying they have an idea or a thought that is not commonly trusted as science. the difference is they don't claim to hold all the answers. if YOU do then i think i need to conclude that you're really lousy at finding the right questions because you don't seem to be able to answer any that other people come up with. you should should hang out with -I- his ideas were much crazier than yours and yours are closer to the truth, but at least he actively tried to defend his position instead of crying like a baby. I'm gonna say the same thing i said to him that i'm gonna say to you. i'm done with you. i gave you all the chances in the world, i held no prejudice to you, i gave you ample opportunities to prove yourself but you always make excuses like how you started this thread. so ridiculous. "I have all the answers but i can't say them". good, then don't say anything at all.

 

I apologize to anyone who reads this the first time and wonders why i have such an attitude but this guy is everywhere speaking alot and saying nothing.

[Farsight2]

It's to do with time dilation, Martin. We know that time dilation is programmed into GPS. It's real. And we know that the more gravity there is, the more time dilation there is. Consider a supernova, a collapsing star that has formed a black hole. At the event horizon, time dilation goes infinite:

 

 

The time dilation is infinite. What that means is that right now, as we speak, our collapsing star hasn’t finished collapsing yet. As far as we’re concerned, it takes forever to collapse. That means that of all the collapsed stars across the whole wide universe, none have finished collapsing yet. And they never ever will. Hence they're frozen stars. The event horizon is where time ends. And beyond it, there are no more events. There is no beyond it. The singularity everybody talks about hasn’t happened yet. It’s always in the future, over the rainbow, because in truth it exists in a never-never land beyond the end of time.

 

People talk about the “proper time” of an object that falls through the event horizon, but there isn’t any. You just can’t fall through an event horizon, because it takes forever to do so. The proper time is an abstraction. It just isn't proper at all.

 

There's more, I can back this up with "speculation", but I best not talk more because I've been suspended by somebody who doesn't know much about physics, and I'm waiting to find out why.

[someguy]

everything you said was properties of black holes. if you claim they are impossible then you can't use their properties to prove it. you can show that their properties are not possible, but not that their properties explain their lack of existence.

 

you said that a black hole is not possible because it is perpetually forming. but if this were true that is not proof that black holes don't exist. because all you said was that black holes are perpetually forming entities. all you did was state a property of something. a property of something cannot prove it doesn't exist because that property only exists if the thing which has that property does. thus the mere fact you claim that such properties exist is evidence that you believe that black holes exist.

 

furthermore, you have contradicted yourself. you claim on the one hand that those things beyond the event horizon continue to fall forever, and on the other hand you say that beyond the event horizon time does not exist. yet for perpetual motion time must always exist. as you have so adamantly "explained" time is a property of motion and for either to exist so must the other.

 

if time ends beyond the event horizon so must motion and therefore there would necessarily need to be a "solid" center to the body that energy must be able to collect to in order for there to be a space where time does not exist. if nothing can make it to that point the point must be empty. but there is no such thing as empty for one and also the center is instrumental in providing the body with those properties.

 

moderators don't need to know anything about physics to ban you. they only need to know about you.

[ecoli]

The time dilation is infinite. What that means is that right now, as we speak, our collapsing star hasn’t finished collapsing yet. As far as we’re concerned, it takes forever to collapse. That means that of all the collapsed stars across the whole wide universe, none have finished collapsing yet. And they never ever will. Hence they're frozen stars. The event horizon is where time ends. And beyond it, there are no more events. There is no beyond it. The singularity everybody talks about hasn’t happened yet. It’s always in the future, over the rainbow, because in truth it exists in a never-never land beyond the end of time.

 

People talk about the “proper time” of an object that falls through the event horizon, but there isn’t any. You just can’t fall through an event horizon, because it takes forever to do so. The proper time is an abstraction. It just isn't proper at all.

 

There's more, I can back this up with "speculation", but I best not talk more because I've been suspended by somebody who doesn't know much about physics, and I'm waiting to find out why.

 

Making mulitple user accounts is against the user agreement. You just got yourself banned.

[Reaper]

It's about time!

[pioneer]

I believe that there are blackholes. I do not believe any have reached the level of singularity. If a blackhole had the point reference of a singularity, it would be analgous to a speed of light reference, which should require infinite mass/energy. Blackholes are finite, since these can form without anywhere near that much mass/energy.

 

Look at it this way. If a blackhole was a point-singularity and you added the same amount of mass again, from which it stemmed, does it become a 1/2 point? In other words, it is still trying to reach the point limit.

 

Since this is speculations, I will speculate what is inside a finite blackhole. If you start with a neutron star, this is sort of close packing of neutrons. The substructure of the neutrons are still contained within neutron shells, so to speak, which allows us to calculate the density of that packed state. To get denser, some substructure needs to leave distinct neutrons. We sort of skinny the neutrons down by making what is inside, come outside.

 

A loose analogy is reacting two atoms to form a molecule. As an atom, the electrons give it a unique size/structure. As the number of electrons that share increases, i.e., single, double, triple, bonds, etc., the two atoms that once took up more space, can now get closer and closer. I don't know all my substructure well enough to tell you which comes out first, so the skinning down of the barrier structures, can approach closer and closer.

 

The way would I approach that is too look at the history of accelerator data. The early experiments were less energetic. This stuff might be first to get sort of kick out of barrier containment. The more advanced data may reflect the stuff that gets kicked out of barrier containment almost near the end. When it is all said and done, the inside of a blackhole could be sort of like what it would look like, if one was sitting inside a neutron, but without the barriers of neutron density; a continuum of substucture which may be somewhat different that what we currently know.

[Farsight]

Just to clarify my position: There are black holes. But there are no black hole singularities.

[Tom Mattson]

It's to do with time dilation, Martin. We know that time dilation is programmed into GPS. It's real. And we know that the more gravity there is, the more time dilation there is. Consider a supernova, a collapsing star that has formed a black hole. At the event horizon, time dilation goes infinite:

 

 

The time dilation is infinite.

 

That's the SR time dilation formula. What makes you think it applies to gravitational time dilation? I don't know much about GR, but Mortimer at Physics Forums presented the gravitational time dilation formula thusly:

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=72898

 

It clearly does not diverge to infinity. Does anyone know if this equation is correct for black holes?

 

I know why there are no black hole singularities. It's crushingly simple. But the explanation is deemed to be pseudoscience, so I can't share it here.

 

Well, yes, using SR to draw inferences about gravitational time dilation isn't exactly good science.

[timo]

That's the SR time dilation formula. What makes you think it applies to gravitational time dilation? I don't know much about GR, but Mortimer at Physics Forums presented the gravitational time dilation formula thusly:

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=72898

 

It clearly does not diverge to infinity. Does anyone know if this equation is correct for black holes?

Yes, it's correct for non-rotating spherically-symmetric mass distributions like non-rotating black holes (with the little constraint that it does not explain what gravitational time dilatation actually is). The value presented runs towards zero when r approaches the Schwarzschild radius, hence its inverse (which is an equally-valid observable) does indeed diverge.

[Farsight]

Tom: there is a deep equivalence between special and general relativity with respect to time dilation. I can explain what gravitational time dilation actually is. Unfortunately I'm seen as something of a crank and receive much opprobium for making such claims. I have, for example, been banned from PhysicsForums, even after a long absence when I returned as "Voltage". Please give my regards to Marcus and Carl Brannen.

 

The other threads on this section of this forum are quite appalling, and I resent being forced to keep such company, particularly when threads in the physics section are overly dominated by lazy juniors asking homework questions. Note that in about a week I hope to make available a significant paper that I hope will change perceptions.

[Tom Mattson]

Tom: there is a deep equivalence between special and general relativity with respect to time dilation.

 

I don't know what you mean by that, but it is clear that the equations for SR and gravitational time dilation are not equivalent.

 

I can explain what gravitational time dilation actually is.

 

Then why did you quote the SR result?

[Farsight]

Because of the method I employed to derive that deep equivalence. This was my starting point:

 

About a hundred years later in 1784 the first person to cotton on to black holes was John Michell. He was a geologist but had other interests, like inventing the apparatus for measuring the mass of the earth. He calculated that if a star was five hundred times bigger than the sun, an object falling towards it from an infinite height would end up going as fast as light, so: “all light emitted by such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity”.

[Tom Mattson]

I still don't know what you mean by "equivalence", but it certainly isn't the normal definition. Two statements are "equivalent" if, under a given set of circumstances, either they both hold, or neither of them holds. SR time dilation and gravitational time dilation obviously do not enjoy the status of "equivalence", under that definition.