Blitzfrog wrote:
Right, and mathematically it also implies it's invalid. I would like to point out that this is only true if causality was still vanilla-forward-style'd
Hahahahaha mathematical implication of invalidity and vanilla-forward-style'd causality. Dear, if you are trying to kill me with laughter, you have succeeded. Please do say more without explaining whatever you said implies to what and how.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Another fact: You measure time in cm already (light cm) given the formula of space-time interval in special relativity => ds^2 = dx^2 + dz^2 + dy^2 −dt^2
Given this fact, the only reason why time and space would be swapped is to preserve causality (s).
Yes to preserve causality, correct. But unless I am misinterpreting the abbreviation of a common metric unit of measurement, why the heck measure it in centimeters and not meters?
Blitzfrog wrote:
What is there to stop me, in a black hole, to say that causality is reversed?
Not stopping you, keep on going.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Honestly I cannot argue with you at this point because 1)This is beyond the scope of my knowledge
oh
Blitzfrog wrote:
and 2)I do not believe physics has answers to this either
If yet to be developed physics doesn't have answers, then what does?
Blitzfrog wrote:
You're not passing through the EM field. It can easily be explained using special relativity. Imagine light as individual photons in this case, traveling in a wave path. Now as you move away from it, the time between each photons hitting your retina increases. (Because relative to you, each photon is slowing down. Kinda like running in the rain, you get more rain in your face when you run towards the rain than if you run backwards) Frequency is exactly that: Wave crests per time. The time between each wave crest hitting you will increase as you move faster away from it.
You forgot to look up the context of that statement. The context was in reversed spacetime. Yes, what you said hold true in non reversed causality. In reversed causality, where space and time reverses, it is you who needs to move through space to be subject to time. Hence, the passing through the EM field.
Since you likely did not get get most of what I wrote, your next question would then likely be something along the lines of, "how can you move through space to be subject to time. If there is no time in the first place how can you move through space?". Well, frog, you are always moving through space inside a black hole even if you don't want to because no matter what you do, you are always flowing into that one direction, the singularity.
Blitzfrog wrote:
As I just said, space does not stretch photons. The reason the expansion of the universe is linked with redshifting is because we figured out and calculated the expansion of the universe based on the redshifting of planets.
Planets? You mean the gassy and rocky worlds that we first started detecting as recent as 1992? Not using the remnants of the plasma from 300,000 years after the Big Bang we now recognize as the
CMB, galaxies created 700 million years after the Big Bang pictured in the
HXDF, and the
GOODS? Tell me more!
Blitzfrog wrote:
It's not that space "stretching" the photons/light. It is that we see redshifts everywhere, therefore we conclude planets are moving away from us. Rewind the redshift and we get a big bang.
So... Mars is moving away from us. Gotcha.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Now space within the black hole isn't ever collapsing. To an external observer, anywhere inside the event horizon is strictly the same in all properties. To an internal observer - I would assume it would be the normal, spaghettifying process. (You might see Serraionga in there) Although I do not know, and I doubt we will find out anytime sooner.
The spaghettifying process is due to ever collapsing space, or some analogy of it, no?
Blitzfrog wrote:
Now I know what you mean by "infinitely redshifting". It's not that light is getting "stretched to infinity", but rather think of it like this. Due to the distortion of spacetime, the geodesics of spacetime within a blackhole means light has to travel and infinite distance to reach us (Or for that matter, anywhere outside of the event horizon), therefore an infinite red-shift.
Basically what I mean to say.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Now the "mass" of the blackhole, like I said, does not exist. It is of no use to refer to blackholes as a massive object. There is no time, no space in there.
I meant to say "energy". Energy has no mass. My mistake.
Rather, it is a collection of event, hence the name event horizon.
That's like saying a building is a collection of builds, hence the name building. You can't justify a name for what it is much like you can't justify Greenland and Iceland for what they are. Even if something is named "black hole", you can't justify that it is black because it is named "black hole". You can only justify it is named "black hole" because it is black. Bad argument is bad.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Now think of the entire universe as a whole sum. The sum of all quantum probability (which is the quantum states of any fermions) must be one. This means disaster if even a single one is destroyed. I've never seen a total of 90% in probability before.
Makes sense.
Blitzfrog wrote:
The first part of the sentence is scientifically inaccurate, and strictly speaking, wrong
You cannot convert mass to energy, in fact, there is no such thing as mass. Mass is not an intrinsic property of the universe - Energy is. Mass is a property that energy exhibit. It's the same as inertia and mass. You cannot convert inertia to mass, it's a property of mass. When Einstein wrote e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, (or the familiar e=mc^2 when there is no momentum), it was this idea that made him so famous. In fact, you can read his paper here. In short, all the mass you have been "weighing" your entire life was the total amount of kinetic and potential energies of your fermions. This is also the reason why at atomic levels, some molecules as a whole weighs less than its individual parts.
Matter matter matter >.<) Why I said mass I have no idea
Blitzfrog wrote:
As to your light problem: If truly it was space, collapsing light, making it redshifted, it could also mean that if in fact an observer was able to remain stationary momentarily in blackholes, he would see incredibly high frequency light to the point of infinity as the light is being collapsed into him. And by your criteria, mean infinite mass which we obviously know is impossible.
I'll ignore the mass part since I meant matter/energy. Now the light would be stretched by the curvature of space inside a black hole, though in slightly different circumstances than the last light trying to escape from a black hole. The last light trying to escape from a black hole is light emitted from a super heated object falling into the black hole. The light past the event horizon from a moving internal observer appears to be stretched more and more towards the singularity from its source due to the constant increase of curvature in spacetime as you traveling to that point. Though let me correct myself on the stationary observer. If you remain stationary, somehow, then you are no longer moving at or greater than the speed of light in the black hole. You would be subject to usual causality with non reversed spacetime. I am not sure what the formulas would work out to, but there is reason to believe that the light would be close to what it originally was if the redshift due to curvature of space at whatever spot you decide to stop at and the rate of collapse balance out. If they don't balance out, then there is something more going on in the blackhole that we don't know about.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Rather big difference between describing and actual reality
Then you tell me what is a virtual particle and why it is not the same thing that splits into matter and antimatter near the event horizon of a black hole.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Check above
Check above
Blitzfrog wrote:
I was describing it. Also, penrose diagram is just convenient due to having a permanent light at x=y. Problem about this is, with the addition of blackholes, it exceeds beyond the graph, and it is not really mathematically correct to just work outside of graphs. We often describe blackholes using the traditional x y z graph
Wait. Why is it with the addition of blackholes, it exceeds beyond the penrose diagram, and why is it not really mathematically correct to just work outside of the penrose diagram?
Blitzfrog wrote:
Centre of attraction always exists in the warping of spacetime. It is just the most "warped" place, which to the internal observer, yes, is the singularity. But once he crosses the blackhole, mathematically speaking, there is no particular spacetime he can assign a singularity to.
Hence why it is just travel in some direction from the source
Blitzfrog wrote:
Check above^^^^^^^^^^^
Check above^^^^^^^^^^^
Blitzfrog wrote:
I'm confused.
It's a condition to which a photon outside the event horizon at plank distance. It might as well be considered to be stuck there
Blitzfrog wrote:
Neither is that correct, it is just the path which light follows. The constant speed straight line from the light's frames of reference
Yes light follows a straight path which we can see curved due to curvature of spacetime. Effectively, we see the light being curved by spacetime though it is not. Is it politically correct to say we "see the curvature of spacetime" instead?
Blitzfrog wrote:
It is a mathematical model, a prescribed reality. There is no mass within the blackhole because given by Einstein's equation, the total energy accounts to 0. Nothing was in the black hole nor will ever be. It's an ideal blackhole, eternal and stationary. Now this is a mathematical model, like you said, should be considered when describing any reality. Which means blackholes in reality don't have mass.
Ok no mass we established that. There are two things all things that fall into the black hole have: Energy and momentum. Guess what happens to energy and momentum beyond the event horizon? Well since space, the thing that allows energy, and time, the thing that allows momentum get reversed, so do the components.
When an particle-antiparticle pairs near the event horizon is created, pair gets created entangled, allowing energy and momentum of the particle-antiparticle pairs to be preserved when crossing the even horizon. Since those attributes are preserved, meaning it is unaffected by the reversed roles of space and time, it allows to cancel out the the regular energy that falls into the black hole.
Blitzfrog wrote:
Just saying, this works when I replace 0 with infinity as well
infinity x 1 = infinity
infinity x 2 = infinity
Infinity x 1 = Infinity x 2
Funny enough, dividing both sides by infinity results in weird stuff
Either way, I propose there is no such thing as 0. In fact, all our lives we have been dealing with infinitesimal.
Blitzfrog wrote:
YOU LIAR, YOU KNEW WHERE WHO MY MOM IS
YOU KNEW WHERE I WAS ALL THIS TIME
SCREW YOU IN THE BLACKHOLE DAD
Sorry, who your mom is falls under factual information I told myself a long time ago and long since forgotten.
