Black Hole Surface

[kmarinas86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation<br /><br /><font color="yellow">There exists a place of no time flow, and where impact velocity for mass equals the speed of light, where mass is compressed to its Schwarzschild radius. Such matter has passed a region where Gravitational Time Dilation approaches infinity, is greater than 10^100 and passes a layer where gravitational time dilation is "undefined".</font><br /><br />What is that place?

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - Note the concluding sort of disclaimer from the link article:<br /><br />"Therefore, one remains aloof about this strange paradox, until he or she is given an explanation."<br /><br />The paradox, btw: <br /><br />"There exists a place of no time flow, and where impact velocity for mass equals the speed of light, where mass is compressed to its Schwarzschild radius. Such matter has passed a region where Gravitational Time Dilation approaches infinity, is greater than 10^100 and passes a layer where gravitational time dilation is "undefined"."<br /><br />It would be reasonable to conclude that gravitational time dilation continues to increase after it has reached infinity - which might be considered a paradox, depending on how one defines infinity.<br /><br />Or, one might conclude that the theory breaks down at this point and further explanation is needed.<br /><br />I'll bow to other posters to respond better.<br /><br />Except to say that this is not the true Black hole surface - it is just a theoretical explanation that does not actually answer the true radius of the Black hole mass or the properties of said mass, such as magnetic fields, rotation rates, temperature, etc.

 

[mikeemmert]

It's seemed to me that time dilation would produce a "time barrier" at the event horizon of a black hole through which nothing (except some science fiction device related to faster-than-light travel) could penetrate. The clock stops at the Schwarzchild radius - so how could anything penetrate it?<br /><br />Then there's the mass barrier. As an object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases. It would be infinite at the Schwarzchild radius. Not possible.<br /><br />It would also mean that the mass of a star collapsing towards a black hole would have it's mass increase and it would reach infinity before it went through the Schwarzchild radius.<br /><br />The results of the time dilation experiments provide observational evidence that time dilation is real. But that implies that black holes cannot exist.<br /><br />Nobody has ever seen a black hole directly. The indirect effects can be explained by a very dense object frozen in time, which has not reached the Schwarzchild radius and never will.<br /><br />These equations are undefined. Could it be that black holes are undefined?<br /><br />I think the last sentence of the link you provided seems to say that Einstein hadn't figured it out. Neither have I.<br /><br />And the math is really simple! 1/x, x does not = 0.

 

[newtonian]

mikeemmert - Don't dismiss faster than light so quickly!<br /><br />Here are a few reasons to consider it:<br /><br />1. Inflation theory for the early universe posits faster than light expansion for a short time period. This may have something to do with time more than with speed.<br /><br />1B. Some explain faster than light in inflationary expansion in the past as motion of the fabric of space rather than motion on the fabric of space.<br /><br />I.e. that the fabric of space itself expanded FTL (faster than light) rather than matter actually travelling through space faster than light.<br /><br />If true, then a black hole may actually do the reverse - cause contraction of a tiny portion of the fabric of space FTL - though that would seem to be only possible for a short time unless it enters another dimension or whatever - is that where wormholes come in?<br /><br />Meanwhile, the matter itself would not travel FTL on the fabric of space - it would be a matter of adding contraction speed of space (or perhaps spacetime) plus speed of matter on the fabric of space.<br /><br />2. Acceleration of expansion of our universe - it is now posited that some portions of our universe are expanding away from us FTL.<br /><br />This is partly due to different light cones of different distant reference points - light cones that do not interact directly (although a domino effect would likely exist).<br /><br />If expansion FTL is still existing and ongoing, why couldn't FTL contraction also exist and be ongoing?<br /><br />It would simply be in a different light cone - this time due to contraction speed barrier instead of expansion speed barrier.<br /><br />Gravity could still interact by a domino effect - reason:<br /><br />While the two reference points are beyond each other's visibility horizon (both for FTL expansion and FTL contraction), there are areas near each other's visibility horizon which will effect each other because of the overlapping light cones in border areas of both light cones -

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">1. Inflation theory for the early universe posits faster than light expansion for a short time period. This may have something to do with time more than with speed.</font><br /><br />Yes. Light always travels at 299792458 meters / second. However, the second is not constant.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">1B. Some explain faster than light in inflationary expansion in the past as motion of the fabric of space rather than motion on the fabric of space.</font><br /><br />Relative to what?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I.e. that the fabric of space itself expanded FTL (faster than light) rather than matter actually travelling through space faster than light.</font><br /><br />Relative to what?<br /><br />Remember that Einstien didn't use Aether as an explanation.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">2. Acceleration of expansion of our universe - it is now posited that some portions of our universe are expanding away from us FTL.</font><br /><br />Or perhaps they are expanding into "black holes", and perhaps galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field are going to crash into them?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">3. Tachyons. Theoretical physicists have mathematically confirmed tachyons may exist. These would be a whole family of FTL particles which cannot travel the speed of light but only faster than light.</font><br /><br />I would say that such particles are just electromagnetic energy with so little energy, they escape the wave-particle duality that light is, and become pure wave, unbounded by pressure. That is, they are not particles at all, but waves of interference and coherence.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">4. Is the speed of light constant? Some astronomers have postulated this limit may have changed somewhat during the history of our universe.</font><br /><br />Time Dilation is related by the following equation:<br /><br />T=1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

 

[siarad]

The speed of light is fixed by the product of permittivity and permeability of free space. <br />Can't find a way of writing formulae here <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br />Do we know BH don't change these.<br />Also to the best of my knowledge C has never been <i>measured</i> outside of our solar system, any-one know?

 

[nojocujo]

Newtonian re your post:<br /><font color="black">1B. Some explain faster than light in inflationary expansion in the past as motion of the fabric of space rather than motion on the fabric of space. <br /><br />I.e. that the fabric of space itself expanded FTL (faster than light) rather than matter actually travelling through space faster than light. <br /><br />If true, then a black hole may actually do the reverse - cause contraction of a tiny portion of the fabric of space FTL - though that would seem to be only possible for a short time unless it enters another dimension or whatever - is that where wormholes come in? <br /><br />Meanwhile, the matter itself would not travel FTL on the fabric of space - it would be a matter of adding contraction speed of space (or perhaps spacetime) plus speed of matter on the fabric of space. <font color="white"><br /><br />It looks like the Einstein Tensor needs a slight revision to allow for spacetime consumption which would allow for a relative contraction speed of spacetime below the event horizon. That same change should provide for a reverse supporting inflation and avoiding the ftl issue after the big bang. <br />No need for dark energy and the cosmological constant remains his second greatest blunder.<br />The first being the tensor being slightly off. <br /></font></font>

 

[alkalin]

Siarad, <br /><br />Good question, that other references would measure C as C. Of course they would, even when they move relative to each other. The problem cosmologists created for themselves is assuming this to mean that C is forever constant regardless of reference motion.<br /><br />C can only be measured in our own local reference, not somewhere else.<br /><br />Why is this important? False paths may delay our science progress for many years. Another issue I see touted often is the time dilation issue. There is signal delay; giving the impression that time is a variable, which it isn’t. Is this another physics goof?<br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Why is this important? False paths may delay our science progress for many years. Another issue I see touted often is the time dilation issue. There is signal delay; giving the impression that time is a variable, which it isn’t. Is this another physics goof?</font><br /><br />There is actually a way around this.<br /><br />If you take velocity the scientists measure and divide it by the time dilation where that that velocity is measured and mutiply it by time dilation on earth, then you will have the speed of the object in earth time. Therefore, light travelling through empty spaces with less time dilation than earth would be <i>faster than c in earth time</i>, that is, more than <i>299,792,458 meters per "earth second"</i>. So if the time dilation on earth is 1.2 (which is the wrong value by the way) and the time dilation in space is 1, then the speed of light would be 359,750,949.6 meters per "earth second". <br /><br />If you reject the notion of variable speed of light you have time dilation.<br />If you reject the notion of time dilation, then you have variable speed of light.<br /><br />For example take a prism. The propogation of waves in a a medium affect the speed of light. The gravitational field can be considered as a medium which interacts with the electric and magnetic fields of a photon. Photons travel along the non-polar gravitational field lines. Photons are also affected by electric and magnetic field lines which makes their path more complex if going though something like frosted glass.<br /><br />Relative motion does not change the speed of light, but the movement of one field versus another involves "coupling" which results in more complex interaction, and slower "processing rate" which scientists interpret as time dilation. This is evident when we observe cosmic rays made of particles whose rate of decay has been minimized as a result of decrease "processing rate", which comes along with length contraction due to int