View Full Version : Black Holes & Time Dilation

rfreeland

09-12-2009, 11:17 PM

Hi Joseph,

Since you're working on relativistic escape velocity and have made some mention of black holes in that context, I figured maybe I could present an idea that's been haunting me for a very long time. In fact, I even wrote this up and emailed it to Stephen Hawking over a decade ago. I never got a response back, so I'm not sure if Hawking ever read the paper, or if his TAs just decided it was bunk and deleted it.

The gist of my paper was this: that time is infinitely dilated at the event horizon of a black hole, so any infalling matter will take quite literally forever to pass it. Thus, there can never be a singularity, and all this messiness regarding the physics of a singularity is wasted speculation. The collapse of a super-massive star beyond the event horizon is prevented by time itself. Thus, black holes can't ever quite exist. This doesn't, of course, preclude us from discovering super-massive "almost-black-holes", and the latter would be rather indistinguishable from genuine black holes to an external observer anyway.

This whole idea hinges on the notion of infinite time dilation at the event horizon. Is that even the case? How exactly IS time dilated at the event horizon of a black hole?

Rybczyk

09-13-2009, 11:01 AM

Hi. rfreeland,

As a matter of fact, I think I have seen something recently either on the Internet or on a science TV show that gave the description of the event horizon just as you have describe it. So maybe your idea is catching on. The short answer to your question is pretty much as you described it except it is not infinite time dilation but time that has come to a complete stop. (Infinite means it goes on forever.) If time stops than no further activity of any kind can take place. And that means nothing could ever get past the event horizon in either direction; entering, or leaving. It would stay there forever and hence your intended use of infinite I assume.

As for my views on the subject they would be purely speculative at this time, but would go something like this: To have a black hole matter must collapse to the point that its outer surface has an escape velocity of c. Given your rationale, it would not be able to collapse beyond that. Thus, the event horizon of such a black hole would be a solid surface beyond which approaching outside matter could accumulate but not go past. In that case the future development of the black hole would depend on the density of the new matter verses its increased surface distance to the center of the original mass. I have done no math on this so it is all just speculation off the top of my head. Guesswork might be a better description.

As for the math involving my new relativistic escape velocity formula, it is different from Einstein’s in the sense that it gives negative time dilation inside the event horizon. That would mean time goes backward inside a black hole and gets into the kind of messiness you mentioned but of a different nature. It should be understood here that such backward flow of time would not violate the principles of special relativity because it takes place on the other side of the event horizon. Nonetheless, all of this is pure speculation on my part. It is not until I focus in on something like this that I analyze it in detail from both a logical standpoint and a mathematical standpoint. And then I go where the analysis takes me whether it agrees with my original thinking or not.

At present, however, I have already made another potential discovery involving the new escape velocity formula. I now intend to zoom in on it to see where it takes me. That is the problem I have with my research now. The possibilities have escalated beyond my abilities to keep up. That is the main reason I was trying to get NSF support.

Joseph

cincirob

09-13-2009, 07:46 PM

This black hole stuff is a little tricky. What yousee depends on where you are. The description you gave is what one sees at a great distance from the black hole. If you were getting signals eveytime a clock faling into the hole passed a seoncd of it's own time, these signals would come further and further apart for two reasons. The gravitational field itself would cause the clock to run slower and slower and it's relative speed would cause it to runs slower also. You could asume you have a side view of the operation so the Doppler effects would be minimal.

The idea of falling through the event horizon always bothers me. I question whether material can even exist at the event horizon because it seems to me the very processes that make material material can't operate where no time is passing. The other problem is whether there is an "other side" to an event horizon. Gravity also causes space to contract so maybe there isn't and dimensional space as we know it inside the horizon. The best I can think of is that the material is converted to energy which becomes potential energy as tension in spacetime.

One problem I see with the description you gave is what happens when we add material to the black hole. It must create a larger event horizon. So motion, or something a whole lot like it, must occur.

It's probably pretty much a tempest in a teapot anyway. If you have an object that is infintessimally close to being a black hole, could you tell the difference between it and a black hole? I suspect not.

rfreeland

09-14-2009, 09:09 PM

Hi Cinci,

You're certainly right about the perspective for this question. In fact, an observer falling into the black hole would see time outside of the black hole's area of effect speeding up, such that as the observer reached the event horizon, he would see the end of the universe. Thus, that observer can't ever fall into the black hole either -- no time to do it.

I hadn't thought about the question of whether matter can even exist in the absence of time. (One of Rybczyk's postulates is that yes, it can, but that it has no meaning.) Nor had I considered the "inside" of the event horizon, since by my way of thinking, there's no way to get there.

I'll have to think about the question of infalling matter, though. I figured it would create an accretion disk just like it would with a classic black hole, but it does seem that as matter is added to the body, the radius of the event horizon must increase, thereby putting earlier matter "inside". I'm not really sure what to make of that.

Rybczyk

09-14-2009, 09:50 PM

September 14, 2009

I have just made a fundamental breakthrough involving black holes. It turns out that the present formula for the radius of the event horizon is 2 times what it should be if my relativistic formula for escape velocity is correct. Where R is the radius and M is the mass, the present Newtonian version of the escape velocity formula gives the radius to the event horizon as R = 2GM/c^2. Using my relativistic formula for escape velocity gives R = GM/c^2 as the true radius of the event horizon, which is exactly half the present value. This means black holes are exactly half the size they are presently believed to be.

I have also come up with a plausible explanation as to how matter can get past the event horizon and thus enter the interior of the black hole, but I am not prepared to discuss it at this time. I’m going to probably have to do a short paper on the change in the radius now even though that was not the thing I was really pursuing at the moment.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Rybczyk

09-15-2009, 01:40 PM

I have just completed a very short article on the findings involving the relativistic event horizon and thought I would make one last attempt to have something published in a science journal. I decided to try Nature and already completed the registration process. As soon as I get a login problem resolved, I will try submitting what I came up with.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Rybczyk

09-16-2009, 10:39 AM

September 16, 2009

The article on the relativistic event horizon has now been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and submitted to the Nature Science Journal.

The online submission process for Nature was almost as difficult as it was to write the article. It will be interesting to see how they respond.

Now I can get back to what I was really investigating. As for getting any rest, I’ve given up on it. There are some things you just can’t let go of.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Rybczyk

09-17-2009, 10:04 AM

As expected, the Nature Physics Journal declined publication of my findings on the event horizon for black holes. An actual copy of their e-mailed response is given below.

************************************************** ****************************

From: Nature Physics

To: J. Rybczyk

Sent: September 17, 2009

Subject: Your Nature Physics Submission

Dear Mr Rybczyk

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Relativistic Event Horizon for Black Holes" which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature Physics' policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.

I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Nature Physics Administration

************************************************** ****************************

I am now looking into Physical Review D and the process is just as involved as the last. The Physical Review Web Submission Guidelines is a 22 page document, and that’s just the beginning. I’ll also have to resister to use the process and in addition convert my document to a different format for submission. Needless to say, I will not make too many attempts to do this. Maybe one more after this and that’s it.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Rybczyk

09-17-2009, 11:08 AM

I’ve changed my mind about submitting my paper to any other journals. From what I can tell, it’s pretty much a political process aimed at supporting the research of major institutions. I’m not going to waste any more of my time going through a procedure that is designed to exclude outsiders like me.

Very shortly I will publish my new paper on the home page of the Millennium Relativity web site.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

Rybczyk

09-17-2009, 12:59 PM

September 17, 2009

The new paper, Relativistic Event Horizon for Black Holes (http://www.mrelativity.net/RelEventHorizon/Relativistic%20Event%20Horizon%20for%20Black%20Hol es.htm), has now been published on the home page of the Millennium Relativity (http://www.mrelativity.net/) web site. The paper can be access directly by clicking on the first link just given, or toward the bottom on the home page by clicking on the second link given.

Joseph A. Rybczyk

cincirob

09-24-2009, 02:33 PM

RF: You're certainly right about the perspective for this question. In fact, an observer falling into the black hole would see time outside of the black hole's area of effect speeding up, such that as the observer reached the event horizon, he would see the end of the universe. Thus, that observer can't ever fall into the black hole either -- no time to do it.

cinci: I just found a book I left in our vacation home a year ago. It says a distant observer will see in-falling material contract along the direction of fall and appear to slow down. It will appear to come to rest in a layer one Planck length deep. I suppose at that point the laws of gravity get swamped by quantum mechanics and Heisneberg would say the mass could tunnel into the hole.

The book also says a co-moving observer will see the particle enter the hole. As I said earlier, black hole physics is difficult to comprehend.

****************

rfreeland

09-27-2009, 08:44 PM

Hi Cinci, What is the title and author of that book? I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks.

cincirob

09-28-2009, 09:01 PM

The book is "Black Holes, Inforamtion and the Strig Theroy Revolution, The Holographic Universe" by Leonard Susskind and James Lindesay.

rfreeland

09-29-2009, 08:51 AM

Thanks -- Susskind writes some good stuff.

Mitch

08-31-2010, 11:12 AM

Hello,

Has somebody heard of a supposed/proposed mechanism avoiding super-large black holes from developing into giga, then tera etc… ones eventually starting to engulf half the matter of the universe (because apparently this has not happened in 15 billion years yet)? There must be some natural limits either endogenous or exogenous but which ones ?

Mitch

rfreeland

08-31-2010, 12:22 PM

Well, as I stated in my original post, I don't think that black holes can ever actually exist. Basically, they're supported by the fabric of space-time itself, such that all the infalling matter is frozen at the event horizon.

From the outside, the distinction between a black hole and my "almost black hole" is irrelevant, because they're observationally identical. But this solves the recurring question about what the inside of a black hole is like, or what happens as you fall into one. Basically, the universe ends before you pass the event horizon, so there is no "inside".

This also helps to explain why the whole Universe isn't sucked into a black hole, or why our galaxy (which has a "black hole" at its core) hasn't all been sucked out of existence. It takes an eternity (literally) for a black hole to absorb everything.

cincirob

08-31-2010, 01:53 PM

Mitch: Hello, Has somebody heard of a supposed/proposed mechanism avoiding super-large black holes from developing into giga, then tera etc… ones eventually starting to engulf half the matter of the universe (because apparently this has not happened in 15 billion years yet)? There must be some natural limits either endogenous or exogenous but which ones ?

cinci: There isn't any mechanism nor a need for one. The galaxies are moving apart because of Hubble expansion so they're never going to fall into the same black hole. The gravity of black holes isn't any significant distance isn't any different than gravity around the Sun. So there's no more reason to believe evrything is going to fall into black holes that into any other body.

***********************

Mitch

09-01-2010, 06:35 AM

yes you have a point there, but galaxies do collide and clusters form, and over the eons of time a super-giant black hole somewhere could have absorbed 2 or 3 clusters and growing so I really wonder if there is not an upper limit to black-hole stability just like there is a lower limit

cincirob

09-01-2010, 09:13 PM

Mitch: yes you have a point there, but galaxies do collide and clusters form, and over the eons of time a super-giant black hole somewhere could have absorbed 2 or 3 clusters and growing so I really wonder if there is not an upper limit to black-hole stability just like there is a lower limit

cinci: I've seen some long range projections about how the universe will end up and with the current thinking that expansion is speeding up there doesn't seem to be much chance of black holes taking over. That was what was important about the Hubble mission. If the numbers came out different, then one day the universe would stop expanding and collapse. In that event, there would be what they call the "big crunch" and lots of balck holes along the way.

***************

rfreeland

09-01-2010, 10:32 PM

Philosophically, I've always favored the collapsing universe model. At every step along our path of discovery, we have been disabused of the notion that we are somehow special. First, man discovered that he was just another animal (albeit smarter). Then Europe discovered it wasn't the center of a flat Earth. Then the Western world discovered that Earth wasn't the center of the solar system. (Asia seems to have worked through those last two in tandem.) Then we humans discovered that our Sun wasn't the center of the Galaxy. Then we discovered that our Galaxy wasn't the center of the Universe. It now follows that the Universe isn't the only Universe possible. I suspect that each one ultimately collapses back into a singularity and is then reborn.

cincirob

09-01-2010, 11:28 PM

cinci: Yes, there are theories that predict we're just one of perhaps an infinite number of universes. Of course predicting anything to be infinite is dangerous. I read an article once that pointed out that if the universe were really infinite, then there wold be a duplicates Solar system somewhere with all of us duplicated in it. And this isn't just maybe, in an infinty of worlds everything will turn up more than once. So infinity seems a bridge too far.

Mitch

09-02-2010, 01:56 AM

Well, as I stated in my original post, I don't think that black holes can ever actually exist. Basically, they're supported by the fabric of space-time itself, such that all the infalling matter is frozen at the event horizon.

From the outside, the distinction between a black hole and my "almost black hole" is irrelevant, because they're observationally identical. But this solves the recurring question about what the inside of a black hole is like, or what happens as you fall into one. Basically, the universe ends before you pass the event horizon, so there is no "inside".

This also helps to explain why the whole Universe isn't sucked into a black hole, or why our galaxy (which has a "black hole" at its core) hasn't all been sucked out of existence. It takes an eternity (literally) for a black hole to absorb everything.

Hi rfreeland,

How come you do not believe in black holes but seem to believe in physical singularities, which are a terrible concept ? If BH do exist then there has to be an inside but it would be a place where the metric totally reorganizes itself (not my theory). As for the infinite time it takes to reach the horizon it is just another referential situation, the metric is not discontinued at the horizon, there is no singularities there, the observer in freefall towards the BH WILL die

Mitch

09-02-2010, 03:05 AM

Joseph, certainly your findings will impact the radius of the photons orbit too. Have you worked it out ?

rfreeland

09-02-2010, 11:33 AM

Hi rfreeland,

How come you do not believe in black holes but seem to believe in physical singularities, which are a terrible concept ? If BH do exist then there has to be an inside but it would be a place where the metric totally reorganizes itself (not my theory). As for the infinite time it takes to reach the horizon it is just another referential situation, the metric is not discontinued at the horizon, there is no singularities there, the observer in freefall towards the BH WILL die

I believe that physical singularities are only achievable at the end of time. If this does turn out to be the one and only iteration of our Universe -- and it keeps expanding forever -- then I reckon time will never end and physical singularities will never be (quite) possible.

My only reservation about this stance lies in Heisenberg tunneling from the edge of the event horizon into the "interior" of the black hole. Perhaps with time so insanely dilated at that point, such tunneling doesn't even have TIME to occur.

Mitch

09-03-2010, 01:24 AM

I believe that physical singularities are only achievable at the end of time. If this does turn out to be the one and only iteration of our Universe -- and it keeps expanding forever -- then I reckon time will never end and physical singularities will never be (quite) possible.

My only reservation about this stance lies in Heisenberg tunneling from the edge of the event horizon into the "interior" of the black hole. Perhaps with time so insanely dilated at that point, such tunneling doesn't even have TIME to occur.Hi Freeland, I'am glad I found another black hole freak here... Heisenberg tunneling mmh ? I do not know which process would destroy the wave function but I think it would anyway, along with every other info, if you believe that only 3 "BH quantum numbers" can remain: mass, charge and angular momentum. It is unclear for me how the surface/entropy could also exist then, probably it can only be calculated and not measured, obviously. What if mass would annihilate with space to leave only pure time dimensions ?

Mitch

cincirob

09-03-2010, 04:00 AM

Mitch: Hi Freeland, I'am glad I found another black hole freak here... Heisenberg tunneling mmh ? I do not know which process would destroy the wave function but I think it would anyway, along with every other info, if you believe that only 3 "BH quantum numbers" can remain: mass, charge and angular momentum. It is unclear for me how the surface/entropy could also exist then, probably it can only be calculated and not measured, obviously. What if mass would annihilate with space to leave only pure time dimensions ?

cinci: Is your concern with black holes that information is destroyed?

****************************

Mitch

09-03-2010, 04:26 AM

not exactly my concern cinci, rather my interests, focusing on dimensions fundamentals. I'am not here to discuss my own theory of course, I'am here to learn about MR -I will have to put more dedication to it though- but I have a few questions on classic SR, GR, cosmo.. first. What time is it in Cincinnati now cinci ? ! !

Mitch

cincirob

09-03-2010, 05:02 AM

6:00 AM! I have an old dog who rises early.

Rybczyk

09-03-2010, 06:53 PM

Mitch,

In response to your question of message #23:

“Joseph, certainly your findings will impact the radius of the photons orbit too. Have you worked it out?”

No, I have not looked beyond what I covered in the papers I published on the web site. As I have mentioned on the forum several time before, I have long since past the point where I can keep up with all of the new areas of research my findings make possible. I simply follow the things that are of greatest interest to me upon finishing each research effort. It is more on the order that each new area of interest selects me rather than me selecting it.

Joseph

Mitch

09-04-2010, 12:58 AM

Hi Cinci,

You're certainly right about the perspective for this question. In fact, an observer falling into the black hole would see time outside of the black hole's area of effect speeding up, such that as the observer reached the event horizon, he would see the end of the universe. Thus, that observer can't ever fall into the black hole either -- no time to do it.

I hadn't thought about the question of whether matter can even exist in the absence of time. (One of Rybczyk's postulates is that yes, it can, but that it has no meaning.) Nor had I considered the "inside" of the event horizon, since by my way of thinking, there's no way to get there.

I'll have to think about the question of infalling matter, though. I figured it would create an accretion disk just like it would with a classic black hole, but it does seem that as matter is added to the body, the radius of the event horizon must increase, thereby putting earlier matter "inside". I'm not really sure what to make of that.

Hi Freeland,

"From the point of view of an observer on the surface of the star the relevant time variable is proper time along a radial geodesic", or: the observer fall through the horizon in finite proper time. Otherwise, as you pointed out, the outer layers of the star would never fall in either, so you would have created an efficient way to prevent the gravitational collapse of the whole star ! Nowhere is it said that external layers can gravitationaly compensate for the inner ones...

Extract is from Townsend's bible "Black Hole" you can find all over the internet.

Mitch

Mitch

09-04-2010, 01:36 AM

Mitch,

In response to your question of message #23:

“Joseph, certainly your findings will impact the radius of the photons orbit too. Have you worked it out?”

No, I have not looked beyond what I covered in the papers I published on the web site. As I have mentioned on the forum several time before, I have long since past the point where I can keep up with all of the new areas of research my findings make possible. I simply follow the things that are of greatest interest to me upon finishing each research effort. It is more on the order that each new area of interest selects me rather than me selecting it.

Joseph

Joseph, I wish you all the best for your research

Mitch

Mitch

09-04-2010, 01:54 AM

I believe that physical singularities are only achievable at the end of time. If this does turn out to be the one and only iteration of our Universe -- and it keeps expanding forever -- then I reckon time will never end and physical singularities will never be (quite) possible.

My only reservation about this stance lies in Heisenberg tunneling from the edge of the event horizon into the "interior" of the black hole. Perhaps with time so insanely dilated at that point, such tunneling doesn't even have TIME to occur.

Hi rfree, I found a mathematical analogy with what you are saying and the "infinite total stopping time" of the Collatz iteration. Give the central singularity the value "1".

THE LINK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture

This is a recreational one only but who knows, maybe one day somebody will publish a paper titled "refraction and tunneling of Collatz interferences in bh medium" or something. Joking.

Mitch

cincirob

09-04-2010, 07:33 PM

cinci: About singularities and black holes. I recently read "The Black Hole Wars" by Leonard Susskind. I'd like to share what he says there (to the best of my ability) because it illuminates some QM thinking that is pretty interesting.

The story starts with Hawking and the idea that "black holes have no hair". What this means is that you can prove that the event horizon is featureless. Everybody accepted this for a while until Hawking made another discovery:

black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation.

Even though not for a very, very long time, this presents problems if you believe in information theory. Personally I don't have a comment on information theory itself because I don't know much about it. I should probably invest in a book like this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=ngZhvUfF0UIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Information+theory&source=bl&ots=_3_7BcH87L&sig=HomFTJ8uz6ZkkAnMueNK8zw-jgU&hl=en&ei=zdqCTITXA8KmnAfmx-20AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

But the one thing I do know is that the theory says information is conserved; that is, it cannot be destroyed.

Thus Hawkings discovery presented this problem:

1. Information that falls into a black hole cannot be accessed.

2. Balck hole event horizons which are accessible are featureless (no hair) and thus contain no information.

3. Therefore, if a black hole evaporates via randomly produced radiation, it produces no information. In any case, the radiation comes from events taht happen outside the event horizon and cannot contain the information that fell into the black hole.

So Hawking bet that nobody could prove the information wasn't lost.

Now comes Leonard Susskind and some friends to try to find a way around the problem. They get some help from another source. A paper was written that suggested a relationship between entropy and black hole dimensions. Hawking believes the paper to be in error and sets out to prove it. He finds that he is wrong. It turns out (don't ask me to prove it) that the surface area of the event horizon is proportional to the entropy of the hold (whatever that means).

But this represents a crack in Hawking's conjecture because it appears the featureless event horizon may have some "hair". The entropy calculation goes something like this: If you count the number of planck length squares (elements) on the surface of the event horizon it equals the entropy. (Again, no questions. If you're interested buy the book.)

So now Susskind and others start thinking about things falling into a black hole. When seen from very far away, as an object approaches the event horizon time slows down and length contracts. Time stops completely at the event horizon so the question is: Does anything ever pass through the event horizon? And the answer is: It depends.

One of the things that relativity brought to physics was the idea that what you see or measure is what is real. By that reasoning, if you're far away from a black hole, nothing ever falls into it because you can't observe anything falling into it.

But his description of things is frame dependent. The other thing relativity taught us is that differnt frames don't have to agree on things.

So, what happens if we pick a reference frame that is attached to the object. What does an observer in this frame see? Clearly, he can't see himself slowing down as he approaches the event horizon. That would require a force and there is no source for such a force. So from this perspective, the object passes through the event horizon uneventfully.

Can both perspectives be true? For what it's worth, I think so. The distant observer isn't not in direct touch with the falling object. He is only seeing whatever radiation is reflected from or produced by the object and he can't see anything inside the event horizon. So he cannot conclude that the object failed to pass through the event horizon.

This is where the QM thinking comes into play. They conclude (If I understand it) that "Yes, the information disappears into the hole." and "Yes, the information is available at the event horizon." and so is not destroyed. The analogy here is the wave-particle duality. QM decided to believe both there and they believe both here.

I'd like to ask these guys a couple of questions:

1. What about the information in the collapsing star that didn't pass through the event horizon? Maybe the event horizon starts at the center during the collapse and all the material actually does fall through it. It's expanding from the center and all the material is falling toward the center. Any thoughts?

2. How does an event horizon grow if time is standing still there?

One more comment, the singularity at the center of the hole is still a problem. Physicists don't like it. Early on it was handled by saying the event horizon cnesors the singularity so we can ignore it. Some now say that if the singularity is a dimensionless point, some time before it forms it gets down to Planck length and relativity equations that predict the singularity don't work at that scale; quantum mechanical laws, currently unknown to us take over.

Just thought I'd get this off my chest since a couple of you seem intersted in thinking about this sort of theoretical stuff. If you dont think any of this is correct or that I've misrepresented what I have read, feel free to comment. I'm searching for answers here.

They were supposed to have all this stuff figured out before I croaked but I'm 71 now and I'm not sure they are going to make it. I may have to find a relativistic centrifuge and time dilate my way into the future.

*******************

rfreeland

09-05-2010, 12:02 AM

Hi Cinci,

That's some fascinating debate! I wish I had more time to read actual books on these subjects.

Regarding the singularity: I don't think they exist, except at the beginning and end of the Universe. Back in high school, we proved that you can model gravity at any point around or within a gravitational body by the mass contained within a sphere with radius equal to your distance from the center. That is to say, at any point, the mass OUTSIDE of your location is irrelevant, because it cancels out. (Interesting geometric proof, if you want to look it up.) Now think of the collapsing star as an onion with an infinite number of layers. As matter attempts to fall toward the middle, it is increasingly slowed by the time dilation exerted by the mass inside of it, until it's frozen in time. This happens at each successive layer, until all the matter of the star is suspended at the Schwarzschild radius of the matter "beneath" it. Voila -- no singularity.

I sent Stephen Hawking a letter with this thought over a decade ago, but he never responded. Either he never read it, or he figured I was totally cracked. Either way, it will be exceedingly amusing if it turns out I'm right.

- Robert

Mitch

09-05-2010, 01:23 AM

Thank you cinci for this interesting and detailed report. I sure added your links to my bloc-note; I think most of the answers are probably already in your questions...

Hi Robert, yes ive been thinking hard about your idea but they say that NOTHING can stop the COMPLETE and instantaneous gravitational collapse. And more: what will be the fixed, internal Schwarchild radius ? If you are correct then all stars will always have the same one, independantly of their initial mass, so you found both a new universal constant and a mecchanism for blocking the collapse if event horizons of existing BH will always and forever be hidden behind neutron or quark material or something (with the S. radius keeping on growing slower and slower but forever).

Mitch.

rfreeland

09-05-2010, 10:05 AM

Thank you cinci for this interesting and detailed report. I sure added your links to my bloc-note; I think most of the answers are probably already in your questions...

Hi Robert, yes ive been thinking hard about your idea but they say that NOTHING can stop the COMPLETE and instantaneous gravitational collapse. And more: what will be the fixed, internal Schwarchild radius ? If you are correct then all stars will always have the same one, independantly of their initial mass, so you found both a new universal constant and a mecchanism for blocking the collapse if event horizons of existing BH will always and forever be hidden behind neutron or quark material or something (with the S. radius keeping on growing slower and slower but forever).

Mitch.

Hi Mitch,

No PHYSICAL force is known to provent the complete collapse of a spent star over a certain mass. (Smaller stars become neutron stars, and smaller one still become white dwarfs.) What I'm saying is not that there's some physical force, but that time itself prevents the complete collapse.

There is not one single Schwarzschild radius -- there's one for every mass interior to any point in the star. Again, think of the onion analogy.

- Robert

Mitch

09-05-2010, 10:32 AM

Hi rfreeland

If you do not know him already there is a such of Stephen Crothers who is publishing ideas much similar to the ones you defend:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Read "A brief history of Black Hole" if you find it. I'am just reading it but I neither recommend nor disaprove, I don't know what it's worth.

On he other hand, when you read what Stephen Hawking is glossing about all over the internet, it makes you wonder.... Or the Borgadoff... what their name already ?

Mitch

Mitch

09-06-2010, 07:55 AM

I had to give up trying to understand Crothers' papers -link right above; the guy is a black belt in topology, he is firing heavy math artillery and with my 2 years astrophysics at university I'am not equiped. It looks solid though.

Johannes, you might be more successful, can you emit an opinion on his work maybe ?

Mitch

johannes

09-06-2010, 08:17 AM

I had to give up trying to understand Crothers' papers -link right above; the guy is a black belt in topology, he is firing heavy math artillery and with my 2 years astrophysics at university I'am not equiped. It looks solid though.

Johannes, you might be more successful, can you emit an opinion on his work maybe ?

Mitch

Hi Mitch, I have been to some Crothers' papers in the past - but is there a particular paper in general you refer to? - Johannes

Mitch

09-06-2010, 10:05 AM

Johannes,

Well, they are all interesting but also all depending on the same line of ideas and equations; we can take a couple of them in relation with this forum's interests such as

"A SHORT DISCUSSION OF RELATIVISTIC GEOMETRY", or

"On the Geometry of the General Solution for the Vacuum Field

of the Point-Mass", perhaps ?

There is another one on ...blackholes - Mitch

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2021 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.