 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / October 2005Falling into a black hole? Where's the gravity?
When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light speed. Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. What I mean is that since objects can no longer speed up as they head straight for the singularity they really no longer experience any more gravity. No gravity inside a black hole!!! No change in speed means No gravity. Mitch Raemsch > When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light > speed. Not in its own FoR it isn't >Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. Not true. >What I mean is that since objects can no longer speed up as they head >straight > for the singularity they really no longer experience any more gravity. see above > When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light > speed. and time = 0 as it approches the event horizon. >Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. It can't even get to the surface, and dosen't get inside, that is undefined anyway. How can you prove there is or is not any gravety inside? >What I > mean is that since objects can no longer speed up as they head straight > for the singularity they really no longer experience any more gravity. Why? you can still calculate the force of gravety upon the object. > No gravity inside a black hole!!! > > No change in speed means No gravity. > Mitch Raemsch > When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light > speed. Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. What I > mean is that since objects can no longer speed up as they head straight > for the singularity they really no longer experience any more gravity. snip John Baez has an entire series of elementary physics articles. You would do well to start here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ > When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light > speed. According to whom? Which observers see that? > Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. Please cite a reference for your last statement. > What I > mean is that since objects can no longer speed up as they head straight [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No change in speed means No gravity. You're making a lot of claims here that need to be supported by actual predictions of general relativity. Provide references for those predictions. John Anderson It is well known that the escape velocity is the motion that an object would obtain by falling through the same space. > It is well known that the escape velocity is the motion that an object > would obtain by falling through the same space. NICK!!!- Have you no retention? Escape velocity at radius R is the speed attained by an object having fallen from an initial radius of INFINITY. This has been explained to you on many occasions, and you've even acknowledged & agreed with it. You cannot grasp something as plain as escape velocity, yet you think you've mastered general relativity. -Mark Martin > It is well known that the escape velocity is the motion that an object > would obtain by falling through the same space. Starting from an infinite distance away and under the influence of no other forces and falling straight inward, that's correct. However, the Space Shuttle does not enter the atmosphere of the Earth at Earth's escape velocity, nor would it strike the surface of the Earth at Earth's escape velocity even if the Earth's atmosphere were gone. Likewise, a comet under the influence of the sun and chasing down the earth in a collision orbit does not necessarily have a collision speed with the earth equal to its escape velocity. Classic example of taking a snippet of information, misapplying it, and then overgeneralizing to produce a bogus contradriction. PD > When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light > speed. Not true for any useful coordinates. > Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. Blatantly and completely false. You keep repeatedly making nonsensical and/or utterly incorrect statements about black holes. Why don't you LEARN something about them before attempting to promulgate silly notions? Here is a reasonable, interesting, and NON-MATHEMATICAL book about them: Thorne, _Black_Holes_&_Time_Warps_. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com Then they're not black holes Tom. Escape velocity = how fast you would fall Its as simple as that! Show me where I am wrong. > Then they're not black holes Tom. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Show me where I am wrong. xxein: Readers take note. This is what may happen if you run with scissors. I shall not attempt to explain to Mitch. GR predicts matter falling at light speed. Of course that is where it is wrong xxein!!! > GR predicts matter falling at light speed. Of course that is where it > is wrong xxein!!! GR predicts no such thing. You predict that GR predicts such a thing, but of course, you're wrong about that. PD Prove it. Bet you can't. Its well known!!!! > Its well known!!!! No, IT'S NOT. You have it wrong. -Mark Martin Oh Fartin' Martin. Really? > Oh Fartin' Martin. Really? Yes, really. Refer to posts by PD & myself ealier in this thread. -Mark Martin > Prove it. Bet you can't. > > Its well known!!!! JFK held seances in which he spoke fluent French with Marie Antoinette. It's well known!!!! Prove me wrong. Bet you can't. PD > > Prove it. Bet you can't. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > PD Don't need too!!! > Prove it. Bet you can't. Don't have to! > Its well known!!!! Just prove that GR doesn't predict matter falling at light speed!!! > Just prove that GR doesn't predict matter falling at light speed!!! So Nick, what you're saying is that any object, any whatsoever, if dropped from only some arbitrarily small height above the event horizon, will be accelerated to c upon reaching the horizon, according to GR. Yes? -Mark Martin > Just prove that GR doesn't predict matter falling at light speed!!! Don't have to, Nick. It just isn't so. PD Prove it PD. Put up or shut up! > Prove it PD. > > Put up or shut up! No, *you* put up. I repeat the question: So Nick, what you're saying is that any object, any whatsoever, if dropped from only some arbitrarily small height above the event horizon, will be accelerated to c upon reaching the horizon, according to GR. Yes? -Mark Martin > Prove it PD. > > Put up or shut up! No soap, Nick. I told you JFK held seances and told you to prove me wrong. You told me you don't need to. You told me black holes make things fall at the speed of light and to prove you wrong. I told you I don't have to, and it's still just as foolish a statement as mine. Now you tell me to put up or shut up. Your sense of your role in this group is, shall we say, distorted. PD Balogna PD. You're going to have to show me where you are right. Prove GR says what you say it does. Put up or shut up!!! I don't belong to this group PD. I am a nonbelonger. > I don't belong to this group PD. I am a nonbelonger. Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, hah,... hah, hah, haaaaah!!!!! Then get the hell out, f.cker! -Mark Martin > Balogna PD. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't belong to this group PD. I am a nonbelonger. Ah, and you're invisible because you have your sunglasses on. This also entitles you to different rights and responsibilities on the group. PD PD, why do you think I need a group's or your approval? Jusr show me where I am wrong!!! After all you understand GR better than me. > PD, why do you think I need a group's or your approval? > > Jusr show me where I am wrong!!! After all you understand GR better > than me. His point is that he asks of you nothing less than what you ask of him, yet according to you, you're aren't subject to your own demands. And when are you going to answer my question about objects falling near the event horizon? -Mark Martin If he can't do it you can show me where I am wrong then fartin martin. Show me what GR really says!!! Bet you can't do it. > If he can't do it you can show me where I am wrong then fartin martin. > Show me what GR really says!!! > > Bet you can't do it. WHEN are you going to answer my question about objects falling very near an event horizon? -Mark Martin Hi! > Hi! That's all you can say? You do this all the time. You have no good answer for my question, so you're going to dodge it by saying crap like "Hi!". You're a worthless wad of sh.t. -Mark Martin > If he can't do it you can show me where I am wrong then fartin martin. > Show me what GR really says!!! Now for the answer you need to be a member of the "inner cabal" however, as I like you and think you are really cool and clever I will tell you the hidden message which can be deciphered by reading GR under a blacklight, backwards at midnight. It says... "Nick is a Fool" > PD, why do you think I need a group's or your approval? You should be subject to a psychiatrists approval... > Jusr show me where I am wrong!!! Everywhere you post messages. >After all you understand GR better > than me. I suspect most people do. > Then they're not black holes Tom. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Show me where I am wrong. I can see how you might think that. One could rephrase the question as: If stuff can't get out of a black hole without exceeding the speed of light, how can stuff get into a black hole without exceeding the speed of light? After all, in our ordinary experience, if we time-reverse what some object does, the effects of gravity are also time-reversed. For example, if you drop a ball, it starts out motionless. It speeds up as it falls, and is moving fastest when it is about to hit the ground. If we launch a ball up from the ground at that same speed, it slows down as it climbs, and comes to rest at the height from which the ball in the previous case was dropped. So it's a valid question, although the way you ask doesn't exactly make people want to answer it. By time-reversing a scenario in which an object falls into a black hole, but never exceeds the speed of light, one might expect that you'd get a scenario in which an object escapes a black hole, but never exceeds the speed of light. The resolution to this paradox lies in the fact that we've neglected to time-reverse what was happening to the black hole. Black holes are formed by collapsing stars and last an extremely long time. To run the sequence of events in reverse, you'd need an incredibly old object that eventually would turn into a star. In our example with a ball, the changes that would be introduced by reversing what the earth did were very small. The biggest change would be due to the earth's rotation, and you'd still need a very sensitive experiment to detect that. You might think that the same would be true of the black hole. Far away from the black hole, it is. But inside the black hole, space and time are so distorted that the direction of time makes a difference. > When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light > speed. Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. What I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Clocks and accelerometers are an important part of our normal physical experience. So long as the GR community remains vague on their function, then you might as well be musing about how many permutations of a magic square a angel can carry in Santa's sleigh. :o) Sue... > When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light > speed. That is plain wrong. I don't know where you got that idea. > Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. What I > mean is that since objects can no longer speed up as they head straight > for the singularity they really no longer experience any more gravity. And that is also plain wrong. > No gravity inside a black hole!!! > > No change in speed means No gravity. > > Mitch Raemsch > When matter reaches the surface of a black hole it is falling at light > speed. That is false. > Once it gets inside there is no gravity in a black hole. What I > mean is that since objects can no longer speed up as they head straight > for the singularity they really no longer experience any more gravity. That, too, is false. Let me discuss the first: Consider a Schwarzschild black hole with "mass" M, and a small timelike object dropped radially from rest at Schw. coordinate r=R. The first integral of the geodesic equation for this situation is (Schw. coordinates valid r>2M, with r a function of t): dr/dt = (1-2M/r) sqrt(1 - (1-2M/r)/(1-2M/R)) [#] So in the limit r->2M, dr/dt -> 0. That is, as the object approaches the horizon (r=2M) it slows down, asymptotically approaching zero velocity (while this equation appears to be well behaved all the way down to r->0, the coordinates used are only valid r>2M). [#] well known, and contained in numerous papers and textbooks (units have G=c=1). Perhaps the most accessible is in http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-07/6-07.htm This is the origin of the old-fashioned claim that infalling objects are "frozen" at the horizon of a black hole. Certainly this is far from your claim of "falling at c". But we now know that the coordinates used here are badly behaved at the horizon, and do not reflect the actual physical situation there. From the standpoint of the infalling object, it falls right through the horizon, and intersects the singularity a finite proper time later. Between horizon and singularity the Riemann curvature tensor grows without bound, so there most definitely is gravitation inside the black hole -- speaking loosely: gravity gets infinitely strong as the object approaches the singularity. The rest of your claims are equally wrong. I see no point in discussing them further. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com Tom that GR predicts a lightspeed freefall is well known. Where time ends in gravity matter is moving at the speed of light. Of course the theory is wrong to predict this! > Tom that GR predicts a lightspeed freefall is well known. > Where time ends in gravity matter is moving at the speed of light. > > Of course the theory is wrong to predict this! You endlessly damand that people "prove" things to you, and when someone does just that in an expert fashion, all you can do is parrot yourself. Yer a jerk. -Mark Martin Then you explain it to me!!! There are no black holes and I can prove it fartin' martin. > Then you explain it to me!!! > > There are no black holes and I can prove it fartin' martin. Holy hell you need to shut up. Youd like to shut me up gassy!!! I'm to close to the truth. Aint no black holes and I can prove it. But there is an extreme of gravity. Martin doesn't have what he thinks. And neither do you. You tried intimidation on me because you are really an inferior. Did you notice it won't work anymore? You can't do it to anybody else anymore because of me. Are you angry? That won't stop me. Just try being angry at me. You started compensating for inferiority you felt when you were young by education later. You thought/think learning is the answer to your inferiority. Guess what? It aint. So go look at your sheepskins. That paper on the wall tells you you are somebody. So you must be!!! Mitch Raemsch -- LIght Falls -- > Youd like to shut me up gassy!!! > I'm to close to the truth. > > Aint no black holes and I can prove it. [snip] No, you can't because you do not understand what a proof constitutes. Sure I do just try me. Do you want me to show you? > So go look at your sheepskins. "Sheepskins"? Who calls 'em sheepskins anymore? -Mark Martin > There are no black holes and I can prove it fartin' martin. Prove it then. Light emitted at the event horizon would be of infinite wavelength. That's all there is to it. :-) > Light emitted at the event horizon would be of infinite wavelength. > > That's all there is to it. :-) That is not a proof, it is just you being loud about your ignorance. So what if frequency goes to zero? Prove it!!! And > Prove it!!! > > And Go be ignorant somewhere else. Go back to ignoring me!!! > Go back to ignoring me!!! He may as well, you pretty much ignore everything people try to teach you. How old are you? "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler; but not too complexly either. Some sort of excluded middle needs to be found. In fact, what we really need now is a Theory of Complexity. That way physicists can expand their view on out to the rest of knowledge and not be trapped in a local system of thought which results in infinite debate on sci.physics. Or then again, maybe not. Maybe we all should just encourage the Global Brain to form and with its power of sextillions of human brains let it solve all our problems. Or maybe not. Who knows? I just work here in the patent orifice. It's not my problem. Next. Yes you, Sir, with the perpetual motion patent submission. Looks good to me." A. Einstein > Prove it!!! Learn to attribute your posts. Who are you talking to? Prove what? I thought you were the one here with all the "Proof." > And And what? > Light emitted at the event horizon would be of infinite wavelength. > > That's all there is to it. :-) No, you need to prove that light is emitted from the event horizon. Bob  Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein > > Light emitted at the event horizon would be of infinite wavelength. > > > > That's all there is to it. :-) > > No, you need to prove that light is emitted from the event horizon. No you need to prove why it wouldn't There is no special condition. Light can be emitted anywhere in space-time. You moron. How simlple can you make it? >>> Light emitted at the event horizon would be of infinite wavelength. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How simlple can you make it? It's the definition, numnutz. The locus of points furthest from the center from which light can not be emitted to an external observer. Simple enough for your simple mind? If you've got a better definition, let's hear it. Bob Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein > Of course the theory is wrong to predict this! There is a big difference between the theory and your understanding of the theory. NICK, What if my SWAG is suggesting that a "black hole" is the exact opposite of gravity, as merely a wad of anti-matter that's having been surrounded by those trillions upon trillions of nearly resting photons/m3 if not per atom of whatever's inside that black hole? It seems to me that there's a good potential of 1e100 photons/atom to work with. So, per gram of anti-matter, exactly how many atoms does such anti-matter have to work with? ~ Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush. Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm NICK, What if my SWAG is suggesting a notion/conjecture that a given "black hole" is offering the exact opposite of gravity, as merely representing an amount of antimatter that's having been surrounded by those trillions upon trillions of nearly-resting photons/m3 if not per atom of whatever's inside that black hole? It seems to me that there's a good potential of 1e100 photons/atom to work with. So, per gram of anti-matter, exactly how many atoms does such antimatter have to work with? antimatter atoms/gram = ? ~ Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush. Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm |
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.