Black hole/time dilation question
Discussion
If you fall into a blank hole you accelerate until you reach the event horizon when, from an observer's point of view, you cease motion.
To you, falling into the black hole, time continues at its normal rate.
So when you, from your point of view, you cross into the black hole, time will have ended.
But if continual expansion of the universe, er, continues then black holes will, eventually, 'explode', or whatever the word is. So therefore someone falling into the black hole will see it explode when he crosses the event horizon.
Or have I got it all wrong.
I know the theory is that you will be spaghettified when you approach the event horizon, if you fall face down and have a tight pair of underpants on you should be all right.
To you, falling into the black hole, time continues at its normal rate.
So when you, from your point of view, you cross into the black hole, time will have ended.
But if continual expansion of the universe, er, continues then black holes will, eventually, 'explode', or whatever the word is. So therefore someone falling into the black hole will see it explode when he crosses the event horizon.
Or have I got it all wrong.
I know the theory is that you will be spaghettified when you approach the event horizon, if you fall face down and have a tight pair of underpants on you should be all right.
Erm...
I don't think anyone actually knows what happends when you go past the event horizon because it's hard to tell because it emits no light, they can only guestimate based on the effects it has on its surroundings.
I think, still very confusing yet very interesting
Watching the Eden channel over the past couple of days were you?
I don't think anyone actually knows what happends when you go past the event horizon because it's hard to tell because it emits no light, they can only guestimate based on the effects it has on its surroundings.
I think, still very confusing yet very interesting
Watching the Eden channel over the past couple of days were you?
There was an old sceince fiction book, Star Gate (nothing to do with the film otsn) where our hero sees his girlfriend plummet towards a black hole after he abandoned her and is tortured by the 'fact' that she is still alive and hating him.
I was confused by the science. I understood that mass would be infinite if the body (of his wife?) was travelling at the speed of light. But, I was told, the speed would not go at the SOL until after the EH was crossed and therefore no one kne what rules applied there.
Seemed a terrible cop-out to me but that was before I heard of dark matter and dark energy. Now they are big cop-outs.
The book was Gateway, one of Pohl's better ones. I read it years ago but according to Amazon it is now in the Masterworks series.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_7?url=s...
I was confused by the science. I understood that mass would be infinite if the body (of his wife?) was travelling at the speed of light. But, I was told, the speed would not go at the SOL until after the EH was crossed and therefore no one kne what rules applied there.
Seemed a terrible cop-out to me but that was before I heard of dark matter and dark energy. Now they are big cop-outs.
- *
The book was Gateway, one of Pohl's better ones. I read it years ago but according to Amazon it is now in the Masterworks series.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_7?url=s...
Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 3rd July 22:33
Efbe said:
it's a part of quantum physics I don't quite agree with. (yes I am probably wrong!)
... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOwhave a look at the other clips/snippets in that series.... fantastic.
Bedazzled said:
If you look up at the rest of the universe as you approach the event horizon of a black hole, you would see events in the distant cosmos running faster and faster...
Thanks for the explanation. Is there any suggestion that the SoL is not the limiting speed inside a singularity?
Byt the way, on the bit quoted, you've got to be pretty cool when plummenting towards a balck hole to casually turn around and look at the rest of the universe.
A Black Hole Star is not a Singularity, it is an extremely dense mass.
If you do the maths then it is easily proven, the fact is the bigger a Black Hole Star is the less dense it becomes, make it big enough and it has less density than water.
The world is filled with misconceptions about what a Black Hole Star is... the reason is the phenomena has been shortened to just 'Black Hole', when I use Black Hole, I mean Black Hole Star... almost everyone outside Cosmology doesn't and the name has become a conceptual error borne of misuse.
If you do the maths then it is easily proven, the fact is the bigger a Black Hole Star is the less dense it becomes, make it big enough and it has less density than water.
The world is filled with misconceptions about what a Black Hole Star is... the reason is the phenomena has been shortened to just 'Black Hole', when I use Black Hole, I mean Black Hole Star... almost everyone outside Cosmology doesn't and the name has become a conceptual error borne of misuse.
Is this wrong, then?
Wikipedia said:
At the center of a black hole as described by general relativity lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[53] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity lying in the plane of rotation.[54] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[55] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density.
De-confuse me this instant, I say!The important bit is 'gravitational' singularity, we don't have much of a handle on that aspect of Physics, so the term might be loosely applied.
It is not a singularity, that is an entirely different thing, so it is wrong but they jumped the shark by adding Gravitational, which negates the term singularity.... you can't really have a Singularity of only one thing and ignoring all the rest of the Cosmos.
It is not a singularity, that is an entirely different thing, so it is wrong but they jumped the shark by adding Gravitational, which negates the term singularity.... you can't really have a Singularity of only one thing and ignoring all the rest of the Cosmos.
Gene Vincent said:
A Black Hole Star is not a Singularity, it is an extremely dense mass.
If you do the maths then it is easily proven, the fact is the bigger a Black Hole Star is the less dense it becomes, make it big enough and it has less density than water.
The world is filled with misconceptions about what a Black Hole Star is... the reason is the phenomena has been shortened to just 'Black Hole', when I use Black Hole, I mean Black Hole Star... almost everyone outside Cosmology doesn't and the name has become a conceptual error borne of misuse.
OK, so now I'm really confused.If you do the maths then it is easily proven, the fact is the bigger a Black Hole Star is the less dense it becomes, make it big enough and it has less density than water.
The world is filled with misconceptions about what a Black Hole Star is... the reason is the phenomena has been shortened to just 'Black Hole', when I use Black Hole, I mean Black Hole Star... almost everyone outside Cosmology doesn't and the name has become a conceptual error borne of misuse.
I can't find anything that defines a "Black Hole Star".
Hook me up, yeah?
Further... if it were a Singularity, then you me and the Planet would be in it, that is what a singularity is!
The fact that I'm here outside the Black Hole Star proves it is not a singularity.
You're still there right?
You too are living proof that it is not a singularity... you are part of the experiment into singularities... be proud!
The fact that I'm here outside the Black Hole Star proves it is not a singularity.
You're still there right?
You too are living proof that it is not a singularity... you are part of the experiment into singularities... be proud!
CommanderJameson said:
Gene Vincent said:
A Black Hole Star is not a Singularity, it is an extremely dense mass.
If you do the maths then it is easily proven, the fact is the bigger a Black Hole Star is the less dense it becomes, make it big enough and it has less density than water.
The world is filled with misconceptions about what a Black Hole Star is... the reason is the phenomena has been shortened to just 'Black Hole', when I use Black Hole, I mean Black Hole Star... almost everyone outside Cosmology doesn't and the name has become a conceptual error borne of misuse.
OK, so now I'm really confused.If you do the maths then it is easily proven, the fact is the bigger a Black Hole Star is the less dense it becomes, make it big enough and it has less density than water.
The world is filled with misconceptions about what a Black Hole Star is... the reason is the phenomena has been shortened to just 'Black Hole', when I use Black Hole, I mean Black Hole Star... almost everyone outside Cosmology doesn't and the name has become a conceptual error borne of misuse.
I can't find anything that defines a "Black Hole Star".
Hook me up, yeah?
The fact that it is not twinkling is due the density of 'part' of its matter causing the escape velocity to exceed that of the speed of light.
CommanderJameson said:
Uh, you've got a link to something that's vaguely credible (i.e. written by actual scientists whose peers don't regard them as total lunatics) to back this stuff up, right?
Read:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collaps...Gene Vincent said:
CommanderJameson said:
Uh, you've got a link to something that's vaguely credible (i.e. written by actual scientists whose peers don't regard them as total lunatics) to back this stuff up, right?
Read:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collaps...Gene's Link said:
It might be thought that a sufficiently large neutron star could exist inside its Schwarzschild radius and appear like a black hole without having all the mass compressed to a singularity at the center; however, this is a misconception. Within the event horizon, matter would have to move outwards faster than the speed of light in order to remain stable and avoid collapsing to the center. No physical force can therefore prevent the star from collapsing to a singularity (at least within the currently understood framework of general relativity; this doesn’t hold for the Einstein–Yang–Mills–Dirac system).
I'm going to pretend we're talking about general relativity, on the basis that I don't have the first f
king idea what the Einstein-Yang-Mills-Dirac system even is.So at the centre of black holes are singularities with no size, right?
Progress so far...
Black Holes are collapsed stars... Black Hole Stars.
Right, let's try the singularity again... a singularity is where there is just a single item, where light is trapped, not by gravity as in a BHS but is captured by the fundamental forces that themselves are combined into a singularity, so are indistinguishable from one another, nothing like that happens un Gravitational collapse, hence the reference to Einsten---Dirac.
FYI, existence is, even your existence is part of that Einstein Dirac, so although you think you don't know what it is, you do... you exist because of it!
Black Holes are collapsed stars... Black Hole Stars.
Right, let's try the singularity again... a singularity is where there is just a single item, where light is trapped, not by gravity as in a BHS but is captured by the fundamental forces that themselves are combined into a singularity, so are indistinguishable from one another, nothing like that happens un Gravitational collapse, hence the reference to Einsten---Dirac.
FYI, existence is, even your existence is part of that Einstein Dirac, so although you think you don't know what it is, you do... you exist because of it!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff