So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-09-2015, 07:32 AM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2015 07:43 AM by Free.)
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(06-09-2015 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 07:08 PM)Free Wrote:  Perhaps you should click the link for gravitational time and maybe then you will understand what I am actually saying? It's actually completely compatible with Einstein's special relativity.

You linked to an article about time dilation. I have no idea what you mean by "gravitational time". It doesn't seem to be time dilation.

"Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The stronger the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio...e_dilation

Quote:"Timelessness" implies a lack of interaction, and, indeed, the possibility of interaction. That isn't even meaningful, let alone possible. An atom can't not oscillate; energies can't not fluctuate.

If what I posted above is true, then the question of "Zero Time" appears to be valid. I suspect that what would need to be discovered is how much gravitational mass would be required to stop time, or for time to run at a virtually undetectable rate.

If this is true, Hawking is correct. Time is a product of gravitational mass, and it is different every where in the universe.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 07:42 AM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2015 07:50 AM by Free.)
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(06-09-2015 09:55 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 07:08 PM)Free Wrote:  Perhaps you should click the link for gravitational time and maybe then you will understand what I am actually saying?

Why should I? You're talking about the insides of black holes. Nobody knows what goes on inside a black hole. Therefore nothing anyone says on the matter is anything but meaningless verbiage.

It doesn't matter that nobody knows, for the thing is we attempt to determine what goes on inside a black hole by analysing the data we do have. We then discuss our hypothesis by posting about them and see what our resident physicists views are on them.

It's true that we don't know, but by not looking for answers we will only ever succeed in producing none. How does anyone find answers if they don't look for them?

We are excited about this, and trying to have a little fun exploring possibilities. Is that all right with you?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 08:30 AM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 07:32 AM)Free Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 09:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You linked to an article about time dilation. I have no idea what you mean by "gravitational time". It doesn't seem to be time dilation.

"Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The stronger the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio...e_dilation

Yeah. I damn well know what time dilation is. Spacetime within steep gravity wells does not behave as it does outside them.

Time dilation does not mean time. It most certainly does not mean that is where time comes from.

(07-09-2015 07:32 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:"Timelessness" implies a lack of interaction, and, indeed, the possibility of interaction. That isn't even meaningful, let alone possible. An atom can't not oscillate; energies can't not fluctuate.

If what I posted above is true, then the question of "Zero Time" appears to be valid.

But what you posted above was physically illiterate freewheeling speculation.
(Hawking, of course, is engaging in physically literate freewheeling speculation)

(07-09-2015 07:32 AM)Free Wrote:  I suspect that what would need to be discovered is how much gravitational mass would be required to stop time, or for time to run at a virtually undetectable rate.

One cannot stop time. Period. Spontaneous self-interaction is impossible to prevent or forestall; timelessness mandates a lack of interaction. Absolute zero is defined entropically; quantum ground states are not motionless or energyless, and thus, cannot be timeless.

(07-09-2015 07:32 AM)Free Wrote:  If this is true, Hawking is correct. Time is a product of gravitational mass, and it is different every where in the universe.

If Hawking is correct, you aren't.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 08:51 AM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2015 09:12 AM by Free.)
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 08:30 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 07:32 AM)Free Wrote:  "Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The stronger the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio...e_dilation

Yeah. I damn well know what time dilation is. Spacetime within steep gravity wells does not behave as it does outside them.

Time dilation does not mean time. It most certainly does not mean that is where time comes from.

"The stronger the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes. "

If it does not mean "time," then what else does it mean? And if this is true, and a gravitational potential is extremely strong such as a black hole, how can it not be understood that the stronger the gravitational potential the slower time passes?

Perhaps you could explain this with words that could be as simple to understand as what's written above? I see no mystery here at all. Absolutely none.

Quote:
(07-09-2015 07:32 AM)Free Wrote:  If what I posted above is true, then the question of "Zero Time" appears to be valid.

But what you posted above was physically illiterate freewheeling speculation.
(Hawking, of course, is engaging in physically literate freewheeling speculation).

Yet, you are providing absolutely no argument to contest it. You are asserting, but providing no reason to support your assertion.

I need to see your reasoning.

Quote:
(07-09-2015 07:32 AM)Free Wrote:  I suspect that what would need to be discovered is how much gravitational mass would be required to stop time, or for time to run at a virtually undetectable rate.

One cannot stop time. Period.

And you know this how? Where is the reasoning? If what I posted above is true, and time is but a line produced by a gravitational mass, and the measurements of time are different according to distance from the gravitational mass, then why could time not be frozen at the center of a black hole?

If time is a product, then it exists within eternity. Eternity and time are not the same. One is infinite, and the other measured.

Quote:If Hawking is correct, you aren't.

Hawking is correct, and even if I am not, the possibilities will include what I am saying. You appear to be speaking of the effects of spacetime, but that is not what I am talking about. Spacetime is not part of this equation.

Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, but it is not exactly time dilation as per your understanding.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  "The stronger the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes. "

If it does not mean "time," then what else does it mean? And if this is true, and a gravitational potential is extremely strong such as a black hole, how can it not be understood that the stronger the gravitational potential the slower time passes?

Perhaps you could explain this with words that could be as simple to understand as what's written above? I see no mystery here at all. Absolutely none.

But that doesn't - and can't - imply that times stops.
(it means that time passes more slowly relative to its passage within less gravitationally distorted areas)

Time is a property of spacetime. Gravity distorts spacetime. It does not create the properties of spacetime.

"Time" is not a separable thing. It is not abstract. It is not some Newtonian (or, God forbid, Platonic) concept apart from that to which it applies.

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:But what you posted above was physically illiterate freewheeling speculation.
(Hawking, of course, is engaging in physically literate freewheeling speculation).

Yet, you are providing absolutely no argument to contest it. You are asserting, but providing no reason to support your assertion.

I need to see your reasoning.

If evolution is true, why isn't there a crocoduck?

I'm not asserting things. I'm telling you what modern consensus has concluded.

I've told you what time is. I have literally and explicitly just told you - repeatedly - why "timelessness" is physically incoherent.

Whatever. Believe it or don't.

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:One cannot stop time. Period.

And you know this how? Where is the reasoning?

I just told you. Time is what keeps everything from happening at once [ed: this is a joke]. It is an aspect of spacetime separation of interactions.
(not that "time" ever really "passes", because that's your illiterate macroscopic intuition talking again - no frame of reference is privileged)

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  If what I posted above is true...

Do you have a single non-feels reason to suppose it is?

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  ... and time is but a line produced by a gravitational mass...

Does that even mean anything?

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  ... and the measurements of time are different according to distance from the gravitational mass, then why could time not be frozen at the center of a black hole?

Measurements of the passage of time vary when one can move between reference frames.

Look, ignore all the other reasons I clearly gave you. The interior of a black hole is such that existing physical models cannot describe it. Our knowledge breaks down in proportion to the proximity singularity, and, strictly, that includes the fact that a singularity exists at all (since a fully quantum theory of gravity would preclude it). But, likewise, the singularity is pointlike and all matter is destroyed by the approach - there's no "centre" or "inside" to speak of. So at best, what you're doing is applying inside-the-box rules to an outside-the-box problem. Except, you don't understand the inside rules anyway to begin with.
(a "timeless" black hole could not emit radiation - which they do)

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  If time is a product, then it exists within eternity.

Word salad?

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  Eternity and time are not the same. One is infinite, and the other measured.

Distance refers to spacelike separation. Time refers to timelike separation. Spacetime separation is only meaningful when describing observable, separable interactions. Yes. That is true.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:If Hawking is correct, you aren't.

Hawking is correct, and even if I am not, the possibilities will include what I am saying.

So even if you're wrong it's possible that you're right?

Uh... 'kay...

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, but it is not exactly time dilation as per your understanding.

Oh, please teach me more about relativity.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(31-08-2015 01:49 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  So I think what's he's saying is that black holes are passages to other universes, the information is captured at the event horizon and there is no way for anything to come back. But what I don't get is how the information is reconstructed in the other universe? Or is it not?

It would seem that it could not be as it was left at the event horizon. Unless it was duplicated at the event horizon. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 07:42 AM)Free Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 09:55 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Why should I? You're talking about the insides of black holes. Nobody knows what goes on inside a black hole. Therefore nothing anyone says on the matter is anything but meaningless verbiage.

It doesn't matter that nobody knows, for the thing is we attempt to determine what goes on inside a black hole by analysing the data we do have. We then discuss our hypothesis by posting about them and see what our resident physicists views are on them.

It's true that we don't know, but by not looking for answers we will only ever succeed in producing none. How does anyone find answers if they don't look for them?

We are excited about this, and trying to have a little fun exploring possibilities. Is that all right with you?

A blind man searching for porpoises in the Mojave desert is wasting his time. Certainly, if that's how he wishes to spend his time, he has a perfect right to do it, and if he enjoys doing it, I say more power to him. But if he posts on The Thinking Atheist his speculations about exactly where in the Mojave desert the sand is slippery enough for porpoises to swim, I'm going to reply that he's on a fool's errand.

There are people who actually understand tensor calculus and have worked the math to solve problems in QM, who are working on the problems of black holes. When you post credentials that place you in that elite tribe, I'll listen to your speculations. If you don't have such credentials, you are merely telling us where in the Mojave desert you think the sand is slippery enough for porpoises to thrive.

If you wish to have fun "exploring [im]possibilities," go right ahead. Or for that matter, give us the coordinates of that portion of the Mojave where you think you'll find porpoises. I'll have my fun pointing out that you are engaging in fantasy, not science. Then we will both be having fun.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2015 03:32 PM by Free.)
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 09:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  "The stronger the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes. "

If it does not mean "time," then what else does it mean? And if this is true, and a gravitational potential is extremely strong such as a black hole, how can it not be understood that the stronger the gravitational potential the slower time passes?

Perhaps you could explain this with words that could be as simple to understand as what's written above? I see no mystery here at all. Absolutely none.

But that doesn't - and can't - imply that times stops.
(it means that time passes more slowly relative to its passage within less gravitationally distorted areas)

Time is a property of spacetime. Gravity distorts spacetime. It does not create the properties of spacetime.

"Time" is not a separable thing. It is not abstract. It is not some Newtonian (or, God forbid, Platonic) concept apart from that to which it applies.

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  Yet, you are providing absolutely no argument to contest it. You are asserting, but providing no reason to support your assertion.

I need to see your reasoning.

If evolution is true, why isn't there a crocoduck?

I'm not asserting things. I'm telling you what modern consensus has concluded.

I've told you what time is. I have literally and explicitly just told you - repeatedly - why "timelessness" is physically incoherent.

Whatever. Believe it or don't.

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  And you know this how? Where is the reasoning?

I just told you. Time is what keeps everything from happening at once [ed: this is a joke]. It is an aspect of spacetime separation of interactions.
(not that "time" ever really "passes", because that's your illiterate macroscopic intuition talking again - no frame of reference is privileged)

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  If what I posted above is true...

Do you have a single non-feels reason to suppose it is?

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  ... and time is but a line produced by a gravitational mass...

Does that even mean anything?

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  ... and the measurements of time are different according to distance from the gravitational mass, then why could time not be frozen at the center of a black hole?

Measurements of the passage of time vary when one can move between reference frames.

Look, ignore all the other reasons I clearly gave you. The interior of a black hole is such that existing physical models cannot describe it. Our knowledge breaks down in proportion to the proximity singularity, and, strictly, that includes the fact that a singularity exists at all (since a fully quantum theory of gravity would preclude it). But, likewise, the singularity is pointlike and all matter is destroyed by the approach - there's no "centre" or "inside" to speak of. So at best, what you're doing is applying inside-the-box rules to an outside-the-box problem. Except, you don't understand the inside rules anyway to begin with.
(a "timeless" black hole could not emit radiation - which they do)

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  If time is a product, then it exists within eternity.

Word salad?

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  Eternity and time are not the same. One is infinite, and the other measured.

Distance refers to spacelike separation. Time refers to timelike separation. Spacetime separation is only meaningful when describing observable, separable interactions. Yes. That is true.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  Hawking is correct, and even if I am not, the possibilities will include what I am saying.

So even if you're wrong it's possible that you're right?

Uh... 'kay...

(07-09-2015 08:51 AM)Free Wrote:  Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, but it is not exactly time dilation as per your understanding.

Oh, please teach me more about relativity.

All of what you are saying seems to hinge on "spacetime." I get that, and with your education you will most certainly be partial to it. I probably would be too. However, I am speaking of something so radically different as there can be no comparison.

Emerging theories regarding spacetime suggest that perhaps they are not the unified properties we think they are, which is something I personally have always advocated.

Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime

I find the above article from Scientific American to be extremely interesting, and it explains heaps about certain problems with spacetime as per Petr Hořava, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. I suggest you read this.

Is Gravity the Force Driving Time Forwards is another article that is certainly worth study. It's by Flavio Mercati at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, here in Canada. You should read this also.

Now, I am not saying that I have anywhere near the education you may have on this subject, for all I am doing is studying emerging theories and coupling them with Hawking's theory, and seeing something that each of these theories can contribute to each other, and to what my original post was on this thread.

Yes, yes, yes, I certainly can be wrong, but your explanations rely on spacetime, and I am asking you to consider alternatives to spacetime and see all of this from an entirely different perspective.

But here is a more detailed explanation of what I see here ...

Let us say that there are two points, A & B. B is at the center of the black hole, and A is on the event horizon watching B. From subject A's perspective, would subject B appear to be frozen in time or not? I suspect that if the model is true, then subject B would appear to be frozen in time, with no movement detected from Subject A's point of view. From Subject A's perspective, subject B is experiencing zero time.

However, from Subject B's perspective, time would appear to be progressing normally, and if he looked back at Subject A, subject A would not be visible at all. Now, if subject B could somehow escape the center of the black hole, subject A would eventually either reappear in a much older state, or subject A would have completely deteriorated from the passage of Subject A's time.

If both A & B were exactly the same age at the beginning, Subject A would have deteriorated into oblivion, while subject B may not have appeared to age at all. For subject B, an hour went by. For subject A, 1000 years went by. From subject B's perspective, subject A's time was going so fast that subject B could not detect the existence of subject A while subject B was in his own timeline.

So, gravitational time does appear to create different time lines, and depending upon the gravitational mass- in this case a black hole- innumerable timelines are created, each with a different time. This is staggering because it would appear that the closer you moved towards a gravitational mass, time either becomes warped, or is created anew according to your proximity. If this were true, then if a body was at the event horizon, and progressed towards the black hole, and new timelines were created for each instance of progression, then the object would exist in innumerable timelines, and be in innumerable locations according to each timeline.

No information would be lost, ever. It couldn't be. Hawking says the info is stored in "alternate universes," but what I am saying is that it is stored in different points of time; different timelines created upon proximity to gravitational mass. They very much would resemble alternate universes though.

Dude, I am asking for your expertise and your mind minus spacetime, not your adversarialism. So put some thought into this and get back to me.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 10:17 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 07:42 AM)Free Wrote:  It doesn't matter that nobody knows, for the thing is we attempt to determine what goes on inside a black hole by analysing the data we do have. We then discuss our hypothesis by posting about them and see what our resident physicists views are on them.

It's true that we don't know, but by not looking for answers we will only ever succeed in producing none. How does anyone find answers if they don't look for them?

We are excited about this, and trying to have a little fun exploring possibilities. Is that all right with you?

A blind man searching for porpoises in the Mojave desert is wasting his time. Certainly, if that's how he wishes to spend his time, he has a perfect right to do it, and if he enjoys doing it, I say more power to him. But if he posts on The Thinking Atheist his speculations about exactly where in the Mojave desert the sand is slippery enough for porpoises to swim, I'm going to reply that he's on a fool's errand.

There are people who actually understand tensor calculus and have worked the math to solve problems in QM, who are working on the problems of black holes. When you post credentials that place you in that elite tribe, I'll listen to your speculations. If you don't have such credentials, you are merely telling us where in the Mojave desert you think the sand is slippery enough for porpoises to thrive.

If you wish to have fun "exploring [im]possibilities," go right ahead. Or for that matter, give us the coordinates of that portion of the Mojave where you think you'll find porpoises. I'll have my fun pointing out that you are engaging in fantasy, not science. Then we will both be having fun.

Yes, yes yes. Go ahead and do whatever you like.

I ... simply ... don't ... care.

Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: So help me out here with Hawkins latest Black Hole comments.
(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  All of what you are saying seems to hinge on "spacetime." I get that, and with your education you will most certainly be partial to it. I probably would be too. However, I am speaking of something so radically different as there can be no comparison.

Yes... from your ass.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  Emerging theories regarding spacetime suggest that perhaps they are not the unified properties we think they are, which is something I personally have always advocated.

Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime

I find the above article from Scientific American to be extremely interesting, and it explains heaps about certain problems with spacetime as per Petr Hořava, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. I suggest you read this.

Is Gravity the Force Driving Time Forwards is another article that is certainly worth study. It's by Flavio Mercati at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, here in Canada. You should read this also.

They still aren't in agreement with you, though.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  Now, I am not saying that I have anywhere near the education you may have on this subject, for all I am doing is studying emerging theories and coupling them with Hawking's theory, and seeing something that each of these theories can contribute to each other, and to what my original post was on this thread.

So far as the remarks prompting this thread are concerned... they are not remotely comprehensive enough to be a "theory". They're Hawking's spitballs.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  Yes, yes, yes, I certainly can be wrong, but your explanations rely on spacetime, and I am asking you to consider alternatives to spacetime and see all of this from an entirely different perspective.

"Spacetime" is a wholesale reference. Different models are not quite the same thing. If a new geological model shows that I am living on granite rather than limestone, far enough beneath the surface, that does not mean there is an "alternative" to bedrock. Do you see what I mean? There is no alternative to the empirical.

This is a matter of definitions and conventions. Bluntly, this sort of thing matters when discussing the edges of possibility.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  But here is a more detailed explanation of what I see here ...

Let us say that there are two points, A & B. B is at the center of the black hole, and A is on the event horizon watching B. From subject A's perspective, would subject B appear to be frozen in time or not? I suspect that if the model is true, then subject B would appear to be frozen in time, with no movement detected from Subject A's point of view. From Subject A's perspective, subject B is experiencing zero time.

Then B - not that a discrete object can exist in that sense at that point - is not observable by A. In any case, as I said several times, it's not a matter of no motion. There can't be no motion. If you say there can be, you're throwing out the very foundation on which you're building - it's a non-starter.

The rules break down at the singularity. The "singularity" construct may well be an artifact - as I mentioned previously - but whether so or not, it's meaningless to project onto it; the rules "outside" do not apply, and it is extremely unlikely to then behave in ways that someone who knows nothing in detail would predict.

There has to be a thing to experience time. I still don't know quite what you think you're arguing for but even if we grant it I don't think you'd also argue that it's somehow possible to meaningfully define time in the strict absence of any interaction.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  However, from Subject B's perspective, time would appear to be progressing normally, and if he looked back at Subject A, subject A would not be visible at all. Now, if subject B could somehow escape the center of the black hole, subject A would eventually either reappear in a much older state, or subject A would have completely deteriorated from the passage of Subject A's time.

Crudely, yes, in the sense that all gravity wells work like this. But only so far as the rules apply, and within a black hole, they don't. You can't just naively apply them (and selectively!) to the singularity itself. That makes no sense. That's been my whole point.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  If both A & B were exactly the same age at the beginning, Subject A would have deteriorated into oblivion, while subject B may not have appeared to age at all. For subject B, an hour went by. For subject A, 1000 years went by. From subject B's perspective, subject A's time was going so fast that subject B could not detect the existence of subject A while subject B was in his own timeline.

So, gravitational time does appear to create different time lines...

Rather, everything creates different time lines. That's what relativity means: there is no privileged reference frame. Only when one observer enters the frame of the other does the matter resolve itself.
(likewise any interaction as it propagates from one to the other)

In thermodynamically open systems a net change in entropy defines time's "arrow"; for certain theoretical isolated systems (the universe!) or certain quantum fluctuations even that isn't present. That isn't the same as where time "comes from".
(incidentally that's what the second linked page actually discusses)

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  ... and depending upon the gravitational mass- in this case a black hole- innumerable timelines are created, each with a different time. This is staggering because it would appear that the closer you moved towards a gravitational mass, time either becomes warped, or is created anew according to your proximity.

Time can't be "created". It's a property.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  If this were true, then if a body was at the event horizon, and progressed towards the black hole, and new timelines were created for each instance of progression, then the object would exist in innumerable timelines, and be in innumerable locations according to each timeline.

If all the paths end up in the same place - and they do - then you just get a standard quantum sum over histories model?

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  No information would be lost, ever. It couldn't be. Hawking says the info is stored in "alternate universes," but what I am saying is that it is stored in different points of time; different timelines created upon proximity to gravitational mass. They very much would resemble alternate universes though.

But you aren't physically literate, and your suppositions are incoherent.

Hawking is just idly speculating.

(07-09-2015 11:06 AM)Free Wrote:  Dude, I am asking for your expertise and your mind minus spacetime, not your adversarialism. So put some thought into this and get back to me.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything. It's hard to say this without coming across as a dick.

Modern physics is not intuitive. That could be my motto. Hell, I could be satisfied with that as an epitaph. Intuition is irrelevant. You very much have to work your way up to understanding it on its own terms before speculating any farther.

Crocoducks, man. Crocoducks. Sometimes the question simply doesn't stand.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: