 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / May 2005No Further Accelerations Possible Once Inside a Black Hole.
Once reaching the event horizon a falling object can accelerate no further. It has reached the speed of light. Since by definition freefall is a change in velocity there cannot be said to be anymore gravity(freefall) inside a black hole. If you are already falling at light speed there can be no more increases. This means there is no more gravity inside a black hole. Its motion is no longer changing motion once it reaches the event horizon. How about that paradox? No gravity inside a black hole? It only goes to show GR in the form of black holes has effectively been disproven by its nonsense predictions. No change in motion No gravity! > No change in motion No gravity! You don't understand, it isn't our job to teach you anything or prove anything to you. > Once reaching the event horizon a falling object can accelerate > no further. Wrong. > It has reached the speed of light. Very wrong. > Since by definition freefall is a change in velocity > there cannot be said to be anymore gravity(freefall) inside a > black hole. If you are already falling at light speed > there can be no more increases. Conclusion based on incorrect premises. > This means there is no more gravity inside a black hole. > Its motion is no longer changing motion once it reaches the event > horizon. Conclusion based on incorrect premises. > How about that paradox? > No gravity inside a black hole? How about this one: Object sitting at the surface of the Earth is not accelerating any further. Therefore it must be traveling at the speed of light, since an object traveling at the speed of light will not accelerate further. Since it is traveling at the speed of light, where it is sitting must be an event horizon. Therefore the Earth is a black hole, with an event horizon at its surface. Prove me wrong, Mitch! > It only goes to show GR in the form of black holes > has effectively been disproven by its nonsense predictions. > > No change in motion No gravity! > > Once reaching the event horizon a falling object can accelerate > > no further. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Prove me wrong, Mitch! hehe... simple, nifty and carefully hidden :-) But he won't find the fault. I hope you don't assume that Raemsch will be impressed by this. Kindergarten dropouts and autistics are not susceptible to this kind of argument. Reasoning by analogy is too abstract for them, specially if logic or set theory is involved. See also: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogicBull.html Come on now, Mitch, say that you are impressed and then add something silly. You can do it :-) Dirk Vdm isnt this an argument against c? if accelerating doesnt help what will? Right. Its an argument against GR's prediction that matter will fall at light speed at the event horizon. It predicts it therefore it is wrong. Hawking says GR breaks down by predicting singularities or infinite physical quantities of space-time curvature. I say the breakdown occures first at the event horizon. Hawking did not go far enough you see. > Right. Its an argument against GR's prediction that matter > will fall at light speed at the event horizon. Matter doesn't fall at light speed at the event horizon. There's a COORDINATE singularity there, not a real one. It goes away if you use a better coordinate system than the Schwarzschild coordinates. Find out about Kruskal coordinates and find out something about general covariance before you post the garbage that you keep repeating here. You don't understand the basic concepts of GR. John Anderson > > Right. Its an argument against GR's prediction that matter > > will fall at light speed at the event horizon. > > Matter doesn't fall at light speed at the event horizon. Boloney Naderson. I know what GR predicts. You'll just have to convince yourself that it doesn't. Good luck. Mitch Nick, the junior high school armchair physicist wannabe: >> > Right. Its an argument against GR's prediction that matter >> > will fall at light speed at the event horizon. >> >> Matter doesn't fall at light speed at the event horizon. >> >Boloney Naderson. Grow up. Just because you are in junior high school, doesn't mean you have to act like it. >I know what GR predicts. The only thing you know is that by whining long enough, your parents will pat you on the head and tell you that you're profound. We're not your parents and all you've done is convince everyone that you are profoundly dumb. You couldn't find your a.s with both hands. >You'll just have to convince yourself that it doesn't. It's past your bed time. Try to not to wet it tonight. Falling at light speed is the failure of GR. This prediction of GR is in conflict with a principle of SR. Can you see that? Nick, the spoiled armchair, wannabe cried: >Falling at light speed is the failure of GR. You behaving as a spoiled ten-year old is the failure of your parents. >This prediction of GR is in conflict with a >principle of SR. It's past your bed time. Try not to wet it while imagining how you can come up with something to say tomorrow that's even more stupid than what you said today. You do that naturally. Every time someone points out how stupid your comments are, you post 10 more that are dumber than the first just to spam the newsgroup in your childish attempt to ``get even'' with everyone who doesn't think you're the profound genius you think you are. >Can you see that? Regardless of how much you pout or the snivelling a tantrum you throw, I'm not going go along with your bullshit. Go shovel it on you mommy and daddy's shoes if you don't want to grow up and don't want to have it shovelled back at you. > Falling at light speed is the failure of GR. > This prediction of GR is in conflict with a > principle of SR. > > Can you see that? stop posting nonsense dick. you are creating things and then attributing it to a theory you dont understand. blades of grass have a better grasp of theoretical physics than you will ever have. > > Falling at light speed is the failure of GR. > > This prediction of GR is in conflict with a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > understand. blades of grass have a better grasp of theoretical physics > than you will ever have. But blades of grass aren't nearly as funny and entertaining, are they? Dirk Vdm > But blades of grass aren't nearly as funny and entertaining, are they? > > Dirk Vdm very true. nick does have that one redeeming feature! >> > Falling at light speed is the failure of GR. >> > This prediction of GR is in conflict with a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Dirk Vdm I find Nick very "interesting" - I am not 100% convinced he is a real person, however sometimes I get a little glimmer of hope that he will either come up with some "evidence" or understanding. Sadly, every time I get this false hope he drops back into his hole with some response along the lines of "You are wrong" and that's that. Oh well. > >> > Falling at light speed is the failure of GR. > >> > This prediction of GR is in conflict with a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > false hope he drops back into his hole with some response along the lines of > "You are wrong" and that's that. Oh well. Kindergarten stuff. Spaceman clone. My estimate of his true mental age oscillates between 4 and 6 years old. Dirk Vdm T Wake: >>> > Falling at light speed is the failure of GR. >>> > This prediction of GR is in conflict with a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I find Nick very "interesting" - Are you doing a study of sociopaths or pathological behaviour? >I am not 100% convinced he is a real person, He probably is in the legal sense, so using malathion would most likely be frowned upon by at least half the law enforcement agencies. >however sometimes I get a little glimmer of hope that he will either >come up with some "evidence" or understanding. Optimism never goes unpunished. >Sadly, every time I get this false hope he drops back into his hole >with some response along the lines of "You are wrong" and that's that. >Oh well. He's just stringing you along to waste your time. If you plan to respond, the best policy is to treat his comments as they deserve to be treated - like a joke. His source of entertainment is stringing people along, so there's no point in entertaining him. Bilge Bilge, you got nothing on me!!! > Bilge Bilge, you got nothing on me!!! dick dick you are nothing. your pathetic responses go a long way to highlighting what a dick you are. macromitch@internetCDS.com: >Bilge Bilge, you got nothing on me!!! Only because I've never bothered to check for your criminal history. > T Wake: > > Are you doing a study of sociopaths or pathological behaviour? Its tempting. I am developing an interest in AI and sometimes its hard to tell if Nick is human or not. > He probably is in the legal sense, so using malathion would most > likely be frowned upon by at least half the law enforcement agencies. A shame. :-) > Optimism never goes unpunished. Very true in Nick's case. > He's just stringing you along to waste your time. If you plan to > respond, the best policy is to treat his comments as they deserve to > be treated - like a joke. His source of entertainment is stringing > people along, so there's no point in entertaining him. Well, I do have a fair bit of spare time on my hands so as long as I am entertained as well its acceptable. Plus some of the arguments Nick has are not unsimilar to ones I have had in the real world, which means I can use Nick as a "training aid." It would be interesting to find out what Nick really is. Is he a badly written chat program like Lady Chatterley (although she makes more sense than him sometimes)? Is he a young, nerdy child with no friends who likes baiting people? Is he really a right wing fundamentalist Christian who actually thinks what he says is even close to the truth? Will we ever know? T Wake: >> T Wake: >> >> Are you doing a study of sociopaths or pathological behaviour? > >Its tempting. I am developing an interest in AI and sometimes its hard to >tell if Nick is human or not. Nicky couldn't pass a turing test if he cheated. >> He probably is in the legal sense, so using malathion would most >> likely be frowned upon by at least half the law enforcement agencies. > >A shame. :-) Well, look at the bright side. That means you have about 50-50 odds of not raising an eyebrow. >> Optimism never goes unpunished. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Well, I do have a fair bit of spare time on my hands so as long as I am >entertained as well its acceptable. You might try trolling him to alt.usenet.kooks and nominate him for an award. >Plus some of the arguments Nick has are not unsimilar to ones I have >had in the real world, which means I can use Nick as a "training aid." Only if yu can find him and draw a bullseye on his head. >It would be interesting to find out what Nick really is. One theory I have is that he's a bot, written in COBOL that failed y2k certification. >Is he a badly >written chat program like Lady Chatterley (although she makes more sense >than him sometimes)? Is he a young, nerdy child with no friends who likes >baiting people? Is he really a right wing fundamentalist Christian who >actually thinks what he says is even close to the truth? Yes. >Will we ever know? Not if you depend on making a logical deduction based on his posts. You might check a compilation list of escapee's from hospitals for the criminally insane and see if how many he fits. You might narrow it down to ten or twenty ted bundy types. <snip funny post for brevity> This post will keep me chuckling for days. I am going to print it off and put it up at work. :-) Ok PD Il'll prove you wrong Objects on the earths surface are not moving and in a black hole they are moving. They are not the same thing Idiot. One is falling toward a singularity at light speed the other is not even moving toward the earth's gravitational center at all. that's enough proof . . > Ok PD Il'll prove you wrong > Objects on the earths surface are not moving [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > that's enough proof . So you couldn't resist taking the bait :-) Courageous try, but no cigar - not even close. Dirk Vdm You both are a joke > You both are a joke This from a creationist... very very funny... your whole church is based on something that has never been proven with any evidence whatsoever. > > Once reaching the event horizon a falling object can accelerate > > no further. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Very wrong. Prove it. I know that GR predicts it. You can't get around that. You are the one with a misconception! >Nick May 26, 6:39 pm show options >>PD wrote: >>> Nick wrote: >>> > Once reaching the event horizon a falling object can accelerate >>> > no further. >> Wrong. >> > It has reached the speed of light. >> Very wrong. >Prove it. >I know that GR predicts it. >You can't get around that. >You are the one with a misconception! it can easyly accelerate over to the other side, a black hole have two sides You mean by changing direction? > You mean by changing direction? i wish you would change direction and f*ck off. > Once reaching the event horizon a falling object can accelerate > no further. It has reached the speed of light. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > No change in motion No gravity! Gravity and freefall aren't the same thing. Gravity is pulling you down now and you aren't moving. Acceleration also includes a change in vector. If you go at the same speed but at a different angle you are "accelerating." Your premises are wrong here Nick. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.