Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Black Holes, for Eta Carinae
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 1 of 53 (80429)
01-24-2004 1:14 AM


Hello Eta (and any others interested).
This has nothing to do with Creationism, just Cosmology. Eta, you have shown that you are well versed in this area, and prepared to devote some of your time to sorting out the misconceptions of others, so I would appreciate your comments on the following.
For several decades I have been studying Astronomy and Cosmology (and many other branches of science) as an intelligent layman, and have come to some conclusions which are out of line with the popular Cosmology books, New Scientist, etc.
Time slows down in a gravitational field. Our clocks run slow because of the Earth’s gravity, and this has been measured using atomic clocks up in orbit, which run faster. Similarly, time would run slower for something falling into a black hole, relative to an outside, distant observer. At an event horizon, time comes to a complete standstill. Ok, that is not quite correct. Space-time becomes distorted so that time actually extends along the event horizon, and inside the event horizon, future time actually points towards the centre of the black hole.
But our distant observer will see the descent of the falling object slow up, and will never see the object reach the event horizon. From his (our) point of view, nothing can ever quite fall into a black hole - it would take an infinite time! An observer falling into a black hole, on the other hand, will see our clocks speed up. He will see the sun, and then the galaxies, grow old and die during his last few moments before he reaches the event horizon (all this assumes that he can still make observations at this point).
So I conclude that matter can only enter a black hole by leaving our universe - at the far end of time. This means that no matter has ever fallen into a black hole according to our time frame. It is all frozen on the edge of the event horizon waiting for our clocks to tick over to infinity. NB. The Russian cosmologists refer to black holes as frozen stars, and British astronomer Fred Hoyle called them almost black holes. But looking in from the outside, they are such a dark grey that they might as well be called black. Radiation from in-falling matter would hide anything right at the event horizon, anyway.
But wait! There’s more!
If you consider a collapsing star, heavy enough to collapse past the neutron star stage, then as its inner regions approach the event horizon stage, the collapse itself will slow down, and it will never quite get to the state of being a black hole.
So we have a universe full of galaxies, with cores containing extremely heavy objects busy collapsing very slowly near the centre, and very violently further out, but no event horizons and no black holes. Unfortunately, our observations cannot tell the difference (yet).
You can still jump into a black hole, but you leave our universe in the process.
If any of you plan to shoot me down, as I am sure some of you will, please explain exactly where you think I have gone wrong.
Mike.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 01-24-2004 10:40 AM Mike Holland has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2 of 53 (80456)
01-24-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike Holland
01-24-2004 1:14 AM


Mike Holland writes:
So I conclude that matter can only enter a black hole by leaving our universe - at the far end of time. This means that no matter has ever fallen into a black hole according to our time frame. It is all frozen on the edge of the event horizon waiting for our clocks to tick over to infinity.
This is very well stated. I've wondered the same thing.
I wonder if it's that the matter approaches the black hole, but never enters it from our perspective, so even though at the end of time the matter might end up at the center of the black hole, at present all the matter of all black holes in the universe actually exists at their event horizons. Gravitationally we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 1:14 AM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 10:50 PM Percy has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 53 (80517)
01-24-2004 6:22 PM


I asked this on another forum and was told the probability is extreme...
It's about the balloon analogy with expansion taking place from a fixed point..ie the centre of the universe if it were a spherical membrane of an expanding bubble
Could not black holes and wormholes act as balances and counterweights to ensure the centre remains where it has always been by re-directing energy/mass to where it needs to be so that instead of the membrane of the bubble expanding uniformly it can expand irregularly ???
or how about these...from sum previous posts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
now throw in brane theory as bubbles within bubbles inflating from said static point like a pebble dropped in a spherical pond and you could get a multiverse that is expanding outwards at different frequencies and wave lengths (vibrations) travelling thru the same medium of "nothingness"
making it possible to occupy the same space and yet undetectable to each separate universe with black holes and wormholes leading to variously the edge, another place or another space and doing the ultimate balancing act by dispersing energy.
so if each resonant wave/bubble is recreating itself for every instant and allowing for chaos then minor permutations would ensure infinite variations...a multiverse ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't thinking of chaos solving the vibration of our universe but maybe accounting for the difference between our universe and the others in a multiverse
and I'm also suggesting that black holes aren't randomly distributed they're there for a purpose...to dissipate energy, shift mass and keep the universe in equilibrium
----------------------------------------------------------------------
kinda like constantly shifting tendrils rippling back, across and thru spacetime and the conscious nothingness that separates our universe from others in a multiverse situation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry for the messy post but I'm in a bit of a rush, still it should'nt take much for you brainiac types to sort out

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 10:42 PM RingoKid has replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 4 of 53 (80567)
01-24-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RingoKid
01-24-2004 6:22 PM


Sorry Ringokid, but you are way ahead of us. My topic is about whether black holes really exist, or are they theoretical end-points of processes which can only be reached after an infinite time.
You seem to have accepted black holes and wormholes as facts, and branched way out in speculations in a Brad Mcfall style, leaving the rest of us behind. You assume that black holes form wormholes, and that the matter entering black holes re-appears somewhere else in the universe. I am questioning whether any matter ever enters a black hole.
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RingoKid, posted 01-24-2004 6:22 PM RingoKid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RingoKid, posted 01-25-2004 12:46 AM Mike Holland has not replied
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2004 2:36 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 5 of 53 (80568)
01-24-2004 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Percy
01-24-2004 10:40 AM


Thanks for the response, Percy. Nice to know I am not alone!
But it occurred to me that I had better add a couple of addenda to my post, before things go wild (optimistic - probably be ignored).
Firstly, I am well aware that the theory of event horizons get a lot more complicated when the black hole is spinning, as I am sure all of them are. I don't know whether this affects the issue.
Secondly, there is an APPARENT time dilatation seen by the distant observer caused by the time taken for light emitted by the falling object to reach him. This is in addition to the ACTUAL time dilatation caused by the gravitational field near the event horizon. So these two effects need to be added together to account for the observations of the distant observer.
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 01-24-2004 10:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 01-25-2004 2:33 PM Mike Holland has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 53 (80585)
01-25-2004 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mike Holland
01-24-2004 10:42 PM


sorry Mike...
and pardon my ignorance but who is Brad Mcfall...do i really want to know or will I just get more confused ???
I didn't realize the jury was still out on black holes and wormholes existence and along with all my other assumptions am assuming that matter gets converted to energy inside a black hole and consequently gets spat out...
...as you were

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 10:42 PM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Asgara, posted 01-25-2004 12:52 AM RingoKid has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 7 of 53 (80587)
01-25-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RingoKid
01-25-2004 12:46 AM


Re: sorry Mike...
Brad is a fellow poster here...
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/membermsglist.cgi?action=...

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RingoKid, posted 01-25-2004 12:46 AM RingoKid has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 53 (80592)
01-25-2004 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mike Holland
01-24-2004 10:42 PM


I am questioning whether any matter ever enters a black hole.
Wouldn't the presence of Hawking radiation confirm that something is, in fact, passing through the event horizon? Or is it just that it gets so close that it can never go back?
But then, if it's at that point, isn't it through the event horizon? If the event horizon is the "point of no return", so to speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 10:42 PM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-25-2004 3:08 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 9 of 53 (80593)
01-25-2004 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
01-25-2004 2:36 AM


Black Holes
I guess I should feel honoured with a thread directed at me personally.
No offence guys - but you really need to brush up on GR.
I shall return (and hopefully) clear up your misconceptions on black holes. You know they are the simplest macroscopic objects in the Universe.
It's been a very (understatement) hectic weekend for me from a personal standpoint (about to be a daddy again) so I will be back to answer as soon as I am able.
Bye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2004 2:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2004 4:28 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 53 (80595)
01-25-2004 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Eta_Carinae
01-25-2004 3:08 AM


No offence guys - but you really need to brush up on GR.
Don't we know it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-25-2004 3:08 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RingoKid, posted 01-25-2004 5:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 53 (80596)
01-25-2004 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
01-25-2004 4:28 AM


I doubt that it would make much difference...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2004 4:28 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 12 of 53 (80671)
01-25-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mike Holland
01-24-2004 10:50 PM


Secondly, there is an APPARENT time dilatation seen by the distant observer caused by the time taken for light emitted by the falling object to reach him. This is in addition to the ACTUAL time dilatation caused by the gravitational field near the event horizon. So these two effects need to be added together to account for the observations of the distant observer.
When only distance is a factor then I think you mean time latency, and this need not be considered. But if you're actually thinking of the Hubble effect where increasing distance usually means increasing speed of separation, then there is certainly a time dilation effect that must be included.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 10:50 PM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mike Holland, posted 01-26-2004 2:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 13 of 53 (80789)
01-26-2004 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
01-25-2004 2:33 PM


No, Percy, I am assuming that the remote observer is stationary relative to the black hole.
If the object falling into the BH is emitting pulses at a steady rate (by its clock), then these pulses will get slower and slower by the observer's clock due to general relativity effects. But the pulse signals will also take longer and longer to reach the observer as the object falls deeper into the gravitational field. Each successive pulse has more gravitational field to crawl up through, and takes longer to reach the observer.This results in a red-shift like the doppler effect, but not due to relative velocity.
If the object was hanging stationary above the event horizon, and not falling in, then the observer would only see the first effect, just like a spaceman in orbit observing our clocks here in Earth's gravity field.
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 01-25-2004 2:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2004 10:54 AM Mike Holland has not replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 01-26-2004 11:22 AM Mike Holland has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 53 (80836)
01-26-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mike Holland
01-26-2004 2:05 AM


But the pulse signals will also take longer and longer to reach the observer as the object falls deeper into the gravitational field. Each successive pulse has more gravitational field to crawl up through, and takes longer to reach the observer
This doesn't sound right. It suggests that the speed of light is changed in the gravitational field. I don't think that is true.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mike Holland, posted 01-26-2004 2:05 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 15 of 53 (80841)
01-26-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mike Holland
01-26-2004 2:05 AM


I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the way you've expressed it makes it seem like you're assuming that light has a different velocity in a gravitational field. I think you probably intended to say that given an observer stationary relative to the black hole that both gravity and relative velocity contribute to time dilation. If so then we agree, but wouldn't the velocity of matter at the event horizon relative to the black hole be zero?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mike Holland, posted 01-26-2004 2:05 AM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mike Holland, posted 01-27-2004 11:43 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024