Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[eerr]

Calculating for an object outside the event horizon relative to an object within the result is just invalid.
Ve must be assumed  > C
therefore,
root(1-(v^2/c^c))
root(negative)
thus the proof doesn't apply.



Some maths allow(need)
root(negative)= i*number

Althought what exactly you would do with that doesn't seem relevant.

[DreamThorn]

I didn't say that Starver's posts are well-researched, I just said that they are the most well-researched posts in the thread.

So, to change the subject:

Electrons (and other leptons IIRC) are supposedly point-particles.  This would mean that they fall entirely inside their own Schwartschild radius and any photons that they emit would never reach us.  This is clearly not the case, so I don't think they can really be point-particles.

[dreiche2]

I didn't say that Starver's posts are well-researched, I just said that they are the most well-researched posts in the thread.

But what makes them more well-researched than, say, my posts?? I just pointed out that he based the whole questionable argument on the wrong formula! Am wrong? Does that even matter to you? I guess not...  but please, then don't use the term "well-researched".

Electrons (and other leptons IIRC) are supposedly point-particles.  This would mean that they fall entirely inside their own Schwartschild radius and any photons that they emit would never reach us.  This is clearly not the case, so I don't think they can really be point-particles.

They're not really point particles because of quantum mechanics. As I pointed out several times already, including on the last page of this thread.

I guess I should stay out of this thread. Me constantly jumping in and shouting at people for talking nonsense isn't really enjoyable for anyone, and you guys apparently have fun with your funky theories. On the other hand, there are several people now who said they'd follow this thread because they are interested in learning more, and I would hate to leave the science discussion to the guy that thinks all of modern science is bollocks and he knows better, the guy who thinks the universe divides by zero, and the guy who argues all movement leads to imaginary time...

[Sean Mirrsen]

I take offence to that! I never said that all of science is bollocks. I don't remember even saying the word 'bollocks'.

[dreiche2]

I paraphrased  . Also, I said all of modern science. Let's say all of modern physics, then we're pretty close to the truth.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Yeah, most of modern physics is pretty close. I still respect the higher-level (universally) branches like hydrodynamics, aerodynamics, even nuclear physics, since they have causes and effects that are relatively easily observed nowadays. But what goes down below nuclear level can still be questioned. We barely managed to get our scientific equipment to effectively work off the planet, and we're already trying to calculate the nature of the universe. My guess is probably worse than a good educated guess, but way better than the most precise calculations if they're made based on imprecise data. I can't know if our current data is precise enough or not, but am acting on the assumption that it isn't - because otherwise it's no fun.

[Neruz]

Simply because it sounds incomprehensible to you, does not mean that it is. The fact that you seem to be of the opinion that if you cannot understand something then it must be nonsense is arrogance of the highest order.

[Starver]

s^2 =  r^2 - t^2,

That's treating a time dimension as a vastly different type dimension to a space one.  Arguably the case, but when considering the dimensions as all 'spacetime' dimensions (e.g. as 'seen from the outside' as one glorious tapestry), then you can't treat it as a different type of dimension in the equation and so you treat it differently by giving it an imaginary relationship to the rest.  (a^2 - b^2) = (a^2 + (i.b)^2), so it's the same algabraicly, but (as it was explained to me) important when it comes to wokring it out conceptually.


What you then go on to say about computability within an EH is perhaps true.  (Or certainly, given that some of our best minds are working out what's happening.)  But the space-time slope becoming greater than 'c' (by the appropriate measure) creates a zone where "the laws of physics as we know them need not apply" more than the slope->lim(infinity) parts do.

I hesitate to describe it in the same terms as breaking the sound barrier, given the lack of actual medium involved and thus not laminar flows and fluid dynamics and shockwaves per se, but suitable considerations as to what effects might exist should be taken.

So, we can currently handle both subsonic and supersonic flight dynamics with an overall set of equations, even if we may generalise them to "these are simpler ones that apply to subsonic, and these are the ones that apply to supersonic" and then when working with ramjets and scramjets we either go back to the complex ones that encompass both behaviours or fudge the interface.  Right now, we (humanity) are probably closer to the immediately pre-supersonic airodynamicists who can speculate about the interface between the two modes of flight, and guess what would happen 'on the other side', but it's guesswork until some equivalent of Theodore Karman arises.  Hawking or one of his contemporaries might already be due that title, but I don't think we'll know for sure until we have the ability to produce a Chuck Yeager equivalent.  Who can also report back!

[Sean Mirrsen]

Simply because it sounds incomprehensible to you, does not mean that it is. The fact that you seem to be of the opinion that if you cannot understand something then it must be nonsense is arrogance of the highest order.

Just being incomprehensible isn't enough. I don't know a thing about chemistry, for example, but I can take the researchers' word for it - it deals with high-level interactions based on the structure and wildly different properties of molecules, and its effects can be readily observed. Moreover, the rule of exceptions still applies, a reaction that won't take place normally will occur in very specific conditions.

It has to be incomprehensible at the same time as being counterintuitive and hard to properly measure, for me to declare it questionable. If we get out into space and the same experiments prove SR to be true in all reasonable circumstances - for example, beyond the Oorte cloud - I'll happily accept that it just works that way and find some other theory to denounce.

[dreiche2]

s^2 =  r^2 - t^2,

That's treating a time dimension as a vastly different type dimension to a space one.  Arguably the case, but when considering the dimensions as all 'spacetime' dimensions (e.g. as 'seen from the outside' as one glorious tapestry), then you can't treat it as a different type of dimension in the equation and so you treat it differently by giving it an imaginary relationship to the rest.  (a^2 - b^2) = (a^2 + (i.b)^2), so it's the same algabraicly, but (as it was explained to me) important when it comes to wokring it out conceptually.

But that is how the Minkowski Space is defined!

Formally, Minkowski space is a four-dimensional real vector space equipped with a nondegenerate, symmetric bilinear form with signature (−,+,+,+) (Some may also prefer the alternative signature (+,−,−,−) but in general, mathematicians and general relativists prefer the former while particle physicists tend to use the latter.) In other words, Minkowski space is a pseudo-Euclidean space with n = 4 and n − k = 1 (in a broader definition any n > 1 is allowed). Elements of Minkowski space are called events or four-vectors. Minkowski space is often denoted R1,3 to emphasize the signature, although it is also denoted M4 or simply M. It is perhaps the simplest example of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold.

The time and space dimensions are not treated equally. And if you plug in an i in that formula of yours, you might retrieve the minus sign, but then you screw up all other formulas where t appears.

(as it was explained to me)

Who explained that to you? Can you give any references for what you are saying?

What you then go on to say about computability within an EH is perhaps true.  (Or certainly, given that some of our best minds are working out what's happening.)  But the space-time slope becoming greater than 'c' (by the appropriate measure) creates a zone where "the laws of physics as we know them need not apply" more than the slope->lim(infinity) parts do.

A citation, please! I have yet to see a reference for the claim that beyond specifically the event horizon, the law of physics "need not apply". I mean yes, at some point quantum gravity comes into play, and that problem is not yet solved (but has nothing to do with the event horizon), but that a slope or anything else would become greater than c.... a citation please!

(and the escape velocity being greater than c just means you cannot reach it! That's like saying, if you want to travel to Alpha Centauri in 1 second, you need v>c. So yes, it wouldn't work! I don't suddenly start arguing about imaginary time because of that.)

I hesitate to describe it in the same terms as breaking the sound barrier

Don't do it. Arguing about Special Relativity by referring to sound waves and sound barriers just shows that you do not understand what's going on.

[Neruz]

Simply because it sounds incomprehensible to you, does not mean that it is. The fact that you seem to be of the opinion that if you cannot understand something then it must be nonsense is arrogance of the highest order.

Just being incomprehensible isn't enough. I don't know a thing about chemistry, for example, but I can take the researchers' word for it - it deals with high-level interactions based on the structure and wildly different properties of molecules, and its effects can be readily observed. Moreover, the rule of exceptions still applies, a reaction that won't take place normally will occur in very specific conditions.

It has to be incomprehensible at the same time as being counterintuitive and hard to properly measure, for me to declare it questionable. If we get out into space and the same experiments prove SR to be true in all reasonable circumstances - for example, beyond the Oorte cloud - I'll happily accept that it just works that way and find some other theory to denounce.

So you expect the universe to be intuitive?

I was wrong before, that is arrogance of the highest order.

[dreiche2]

Well, I guess we don't need to resort to constant name-calling.

It has to be incomprehensible at the same time as being counterintuitive and hard to properly measure, for me to declare it questionable.

The problem is that

a) It's incomprehensible to you, but not to some others.
b) Same with counterintuitive, once you got used to it.
c) If it was trivial to measure, we would see its effect all around us, and it would be intuitive after all. However, there's loads of evidence for it.

But yeah, I guess we made our points here already.

[Starver]

mean that either (dX^2 + dY^2 + dZ^2) sums positive and dT^2 is negative

He is using the wrong formula! And then from there... Well-researched and scientifically approved???

Whatever, guys. 

Indeed, whatever.  An incorrectly applied formula I could accept (or one using undefined terms).  But are you saying "wrong formula" as in using ax^2-y=C-bx instead of y=ax^2+bx+c?

So, if you were treating time as being real and then find you need an imaginary amount of time, you would end up with a negatively oriented space dimension. (i * i = -1)

I mean. What. The. 

What's wrong with i^2=-1?  That's the very definition.  (As rearranged from i=root(-1).)

[dreiche2]

So, if you were treating time as being real and then find you need an imaginary amount of time, you would end up with a negatively oriented space dimension. (i * i = -1)

I mean. What. The. 

What's wrong with i^2=-1?  That's the very definition.  (As rearranged from i=root(-1).)

Dude. I meant the sentence before that. Not the tiny bit in the parentheses at the end.

Now, as you seem to be unwilling to give references for what you say, I will make your argument for you: It turns out that I was wrong in part, as the concept of imaginary time does indeed exist, although further googling seems to suggest that it's not necessarily accepted/understood. However, it seems to play a role only when quantum field theory comes into play.

I stand, for now, by my statements that

1. Imaginary time is not needed in relativity per se.
2. You did not make a coherent argument, starting from the fact that even if you allow for imaginary time, the equation with =0 does not refer to time-like, but light-like.
3. You guys are confusing the singularity itself with the event horizon. The former is where physics as we know it falls apart, but not the latter.

[Starver]

I didn't say that Starver's posts are well-researched, I just said that they are the most well-researched posts in the thread.

Cheers!

All I know is that they're far more verbose than I think they ought to be.

Actually, while I obviously fail to keep them as simple as they could be, I feel a bit guilty that on the one hand I've been doing a "I'll skip over this", when obviously not everyone has worked with the likes of imaginary/complex numbers, and on the other I've been simplifying other parts of complex mathematics beyond the limit of some learned readers' level of tolerance.

But I know that I'm a little behind the cutting edge of current thinking (it's about four years since I let my decades-long New Scientist subscription lapse, and there's not been many decent programmes on the TV that aren't just 'revealing' old theories as new, so my absence from the bleeding heart of academia hasn't been supplemented by anything I'd consider particularly revolutionary in this field), so I'm always on the lookout for new ideas to critique, and accept that I behave as if everyone else has the same wish and so wouldn't mind reading my waffle.

(It's probably a personality defect.  Apparently I was made fun of at primary school for announcing to my contemporaries that there were such things as negative numbers.  Can't quite remember that, but it's a familty legend.  But I do remember sticking to my guns, in a maths class, and stating that I didn't have the average number of legs for people in this country.  (I, and most people I know, have more by either mean or median measure.  And I reckon the insects have us beat if you want to talk about the mode value.)  I was right (FCVO 'right') in both those cases, but have no illusion about this being a perpetul state of grace.