Gravitational Time Dilation

[wellwisher]

Photons move at the speed of light, with the speed of light, not reference dependent. Photons also have the characteristics of wavelength and frequency, which are reference dependent. The photon flowing into the blackhole, move at a given speed, with wavelength getting smaller and smaller. Maybe a better analogy is a striker,moving at C, hitting quantum chimes, starting with large chimes, and getting smaller and smaller; quantum steps.

Space-time does not expand nor does it contract all by itself. We do not see zones of pure space-time expanding and contracting all by itself, apart from matter/energy or dark matter/energy. Space-time is a dependent variable. In GR, space-time is dependent on mass geometry. What this means is time dilation, via GR, is connected to mass, at an even more fundamental level than the dependent variable space-time.

My theory is long lived matter; behind chemistry, like protons and electrons have built in sub particle time dilation. This is inferred from collider data. If we smash protons, for example, the sub particles, once released, only last a very short time. As a proton, these same sub particles last for billions of years. If we assume both are the same sub particles, and that the proton doesn't have different sub-particles, in situ, the life expectancy difference can be explain with the sub particles of the protons having build time dilation; potential in time, that was induced early in creation. When we collide near C, we disrupt this.

That being said, since mass underlies the contraction of space-time in GR, it seems reasonable that the built in time dilation within long lived matter, begins to concentrate time, within spacetime, adds extra time potential; contact high.

Say we begin with a proton that has internal time dilation within its sub particles. As the bulk proton enters a black hole, and begins to time dilate, it now has two layers of time dilation. We have the bulk proton; contact high with the black hole, and the internal sub-particles of the proton, with time dilation from original creation.

This dual time dilation, cannot exceed a speed of light equivalent. What that means is the inside and outside of the proton can't stay independent and additive; series circuit, but rather it will need to merge; parallel circuit. This essentially causes the sub-particles to exist outside the protons, while gaining parallel time dilation; proton polymers.

 

[paddoboy]

You reframe or withdraw Q5 and Q7, then I will answer once again, all your questions. But you have to promise to this forum, that if you have any objection to my answeres then you will respond in your language, not some copy paste stuff.......Take the challenge ?

I withdraw nothing and promise nothing. Therein lies your stupidity in asking that copy n paste not be allowed...Grow up!

 

[Kristoffer]

I withdraw nothing and promise nothing. Therein lies your stupidity in asking that copy n paste not be allowed...Grow up!

How can it be stupidity when he's second to none?

 

[paddoboy]

It is you, as the raging buffoon who continually stirs up resentment unnecessarily, that has an unfortunately condoned Troll agenda.
.

No on both counts. You have shown quite admirably that you are the rager here and a buffoon to boot.
I'll continue on as is..Don't like it? tough titty!

Anyone is free to re-read your #448, #463, and decide what you were unquestioningly endorsing in full. As usual the SHOUTING bolded textgives clues. But let's see, I made key statements in #606 dealing with limitations of the river model, as also back in #468. Which ones do you challenge? I mean on a technically competent relevant basis.

Post 448 begins with

Hi brucep....
Like I said, I see it as a useful analogy, similar to the "inflating balloon" or "raisin loaf" analogies for spacetime expansion.

the rest is from Professor hamilton's web page
post463 says in part.....
Your use of the phrase "imperfect lay analogy" is very interesting.
Let's look at it...imperfect, well yes, all analogies are imperfect or have limitations. Lay, in reference to me?..what can I say? Except to say that so far in this little berating exersise of yours, you have already accused me unjustly of not knowing it is an analogy and not knowing that analogies do have limitations. But yes, I'm humble enough to admit I'm only a lay person.
Obviously I was objecting to "imperfect" not analogy.

Any more buffoonery qeerus?

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

I withdraw nothing and promise nothing. Therein lies your stupidity in asking that copy n paste not be allowed...Grow up!

How long will you copy paste ? How long will you treat glossy mag analogies as gospel truth ?? How long will you troll with your nil understanding of deeper concepts ?? Copy paste does not mean you understood what is copy pasted....So write in your language..........I will pardon your secumb for succumb, don't worry on that....

 

[paddoboy]

How long will you copy paste ? How long will you treat glossy mag analogies as gospel truth ?? How long will you troll with your nil understanding of deeper concepts ?? Copy paste does not mean you understood what is copy pasted....So write in your language..........I will pardon your secumb for succumb, don't worry on that....

I'll copy n paste when necessary to re-enforce my own claims on cosmology, which so far have proven to be reasonably OK, and to refute your total nonsense as everyone has agreed, including qeerus.
As far as trolling is concerned, I'll gladly stand by the judgement of yours and mine peers on this forum, OK?

 

[Q-reeus]

No on both counts. You have shown quite admirably that you are the rager here and a buffoon to boot.
I'll continue on as is..Don't like it? tough titty!


Post 448 begins with

the rest is from Professor hamilton's web page
post463 says in part.....
Your use of the phrase "imperfect lay analogy" is very interesting.
Let's look at it...imperfect, well yes, all analogies are imperfect or have limitations. Lay, in reference to me?..what can I say? Except to say that so far in this little berating exersise of yours, you have already accused me unjustly of not knowing it is an analogy and not knowing that analogies do have limitations. But yes, I'm humble enough to admit I'm only a lay person.
Obviously I was objecting to "imperfect" not analogy.

Any more buffoonery qeerus?

Nice of you to be ever so kind and gentle on yourself with that highly selective quoting. Why did even your close bud brucep take you to task then? But as for your last question - sure. How about your pathetic stumbling from one awkward proposition/correction/ to another, as it embarrassingly unfolded this quite fresh thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sunspots-on-venus.148300/
Pathetic. An 'instructor of babes' who himself needs spoon-feeding. But to get back to this current topic - can't help but notice you never attempted to answer my question last part of #620. Not surprised.

 

[paddoboy]

How long will you copy paste ? How long will you treat glossy mag analogies as gospel truth ?? How long will you troll with your nil understanding of deeper concepts ?? Copy paste does not mean you understood what is copy pasted....So write in your language..........I will pardon your secumb for succumb, don't worry on that....

You have some questions to answer, particularly number 7:

[1] If you do not accept BH's what do you have to explain the effects we see on spacetime and matter/energy? [BNS not accepted as they have been logically invalidated.
[2] Since according to GR it is impossible for any signal to travel from the center of a BH back out to the EH, how does a BH hold its shape, in light of the fact that you reject fossil fields and the nonlinearity of gravity/spacetime?
[3]Since you still seem to be insisting of the existence of your nonsense BNS, why don't you show some honesty, some intestinal fortitude and forget about your ego problem and post in the correct section?
[4] If the strong nuclear force is never surpassed as you say, how do you explain the complete disassembling of matter, sometimes even before crossing the EH.
[5]Have you ever heard of tidal gravitational effects?
[6] How do you explain the GR edict that tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
[7]Why should anyone on this forum accept the "beliefs" and anti mainstream answers of a non professional person on the subject of BH cosmology, without you obtaining some reputable link to support your claims, such as I have done.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

I'll copy n paste when necessary to re-enforce my own claims on cosmology,

Quite comical !!

 

[paddoboy]

Nice of you to be ever so kind and gentle on yourself with that highly selective quoting. Why did even your close bud brucep take you to task then? But as for your last question - sure. How about your pathetic stumbling from one awkward proposition/correction/ to another, as it embarrassingly unfolded this quite fresh thread: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sunspots-on-venus.148300/
Pathetic. An 'instructor of babes' who himself needs spoon-feeding. But to get back to this current topic - can't help but notice you never attempted to answer my question last part of #620. Not surprised.

I'm not really interested in your continued nonsense qeerus.
The river/water fall analogy is mathematically sound, and if you have any grounds why it isn't then contact Professor Hamilton re his paper, and for once in your miserable life, show some intestinal fortitude.

ps: If you have anything to say on the Venus question, be my guest.
It seems besides the lack of intestinal fortitude, [a trait of most blowhards] you are now grasping at straws.

 

[paddoboy]

Quite comical !!

Not half as comical as you Donald.
It's all there in black and white over many threads.
And I'm sure our peers on this forum, your peers and mine, will give an adequate account of whose view on cosmology aligns with what is generally accepted.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Not half as comical as you Donald.
It's all there in black and white over many threads.
And I'm sure our peers on this forum, your peers and mine, will give an adequate account of whose view on cosmology aligns with what is generally accepted.

The problem is none has understood your views !!

My views are crystal clear, I am not in favor of BH singularity...I am not gungaho with BB...I am quite amused with CMBR explanation....And I find farthest (galaxies) spacetime expanding at a speed faster than light quite chilly...I have my own reservation about time dilation but I am quite ok with constancy of speed of light.

If you have guts, put down your views as clearly as I have.....

 

[Q-reeus]

I'm not really interested in your continued nonsense qeerus.
The river/water fall analogy is mathematically sound, and if you have any grounds why it isn't then contact Professor Hamilton re his paper, and for once in your miserable life, show some intestinal fortitude.

The upshot is you simply cannot challenge any of the points I raised, which directly questioned the validity of river model. Yet had ample opportunity to do so between posting of #468 and flurry of replies via tashja beginning with #599. All you did was sit on your likely wide posterior and wait it out. And who's the coward - the one who sticks his neck out and challenges, or the status quo cheer-leader that never ever strays from 'safe'?
And in case you haven't figured it, tashja intimated via 'linked to this thread', that not only Prof. Hamilton, but all respondents had very likely read all my criticisms in #468 before responding. After all, It was me, not you, that specifically asked for an opinion on such. You have an incredibly warped, or rather conveniently selective, idea of cowardice. Which again brings me to the point yet again - which of my criticisms of river model in #468, #606, do you challenge - coward.

ps: If you have anything to say on the Venus question, be my guest.
It seems besides the lack of intestinal fortitude, [a trait of most blowhards] you are now grasping at straws.

And no there was sufficient competence in the 'Venus' thread to expose then correct your embarrassing foolishness there. But I will save the URL for any future reference. Priceless example.

 

[paddoboy]

The problem is none has understood your views !!

That's another lie Donald.
Hi Tashja,

I believe paddoboy has answered the question as thoroughly
as anyone can. As he says, the question has no answer,
because there is no link between an interval of coordinate
time inside the horizon and an interval of coordinate time
outside the horizon; the internal and external coordinate
systems are not related to each other.

Cheers!

Eric
_________________________________
Eric Poisson
Professor of Physics
University of Guelph

My views are crystal clear, I am not in favor of BH singularity...I am not gungaho with BB...I am quite amused with CMBR explanation....And I find farthest (galaxies) spacetime expanding at a speed faster than light quite chilly...I have my own reservation about time dilation but I am quite ok with constancy of speed of light.

That's why most on this forum are also comfortable in the notion that you are delusional.
And of course it just proves your whole dishonest nature.
Why are you not posting in the alternative section?

If you have guts, put down your views as clearly as I have.....

My views align with what the evidence shows.Full stop..pure and simple.
BHs are near certain to exist...no other explanation is available.
The BB is near certain for the reasons I have told you before.
Cosmological redshift denotes that the further galaxies are receding at near "c" due to spacetime expansion.
The fact that the CMBR is everywhere uniformly infers it is the left over heat from the BB.
We have much overwhelming evidence for time dilation.

Now if you want to discuss alternative notions re these explanations, be big enough to do it in the proper section.

 

[paddoboy]

The upshot is you simply cannot challenge any of the points I raised, which directly questioned the validity of river model.

No, the upshot is you lack the intestinal fortitude to refute it with the initiator of the paper. Or to be able to refute the maths supporting it.

Yet had ample opportunity to do so between posting of #468 and flurry of replies via tashja beginning with #599. All you did was sit on your likely wide posterior and wait it out. And who's the coward - the one who sticks his neck out and challenges, or the status quo cheer-leader that never ever strays from 'safe'?
And in case you haven't figured it, tashja intimated via 'linked to this thread', that not only Prof. Hamilton, but all respondents had very likely read all my criticisms in #468 before responding. After all, It was me, not you, that specifically asked for an opinion on such. You have an incredibly warped, or rather conveniently selective, idea of cowardice. Which again brings me to the point yet again - which of my criticisms of river model in #468, #606, do you challenge - coward.

And no there was sufficient competence in the 'Venus' thread to expose then correct your embarrassing foolishness there. But I will save the URL for any future reference. Priceless example.

Oh blah blah blah blah.
Wake up to yourself, afterall you are supposed to be a grown man.
Despite your whinging, whining, bullying, threatening, name calling, the river/waterfall model stands as a more than useful analogy.
On the Venus thingy, I really don't know what's got into you...puzzling.
If you have anything useful to add do it. Stop floundering around like a girl with no pants!
You're Really funny...not funny haha, funny peculiar.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

That's another lie Donald.
Hi Tashja,

I believe paddoboy has answered the question as thoroughly
as anyone can. As he says, the question has no answer,
because there is no link between an interval of coordinate
time inside the horizon and an interval of coordinate time
outside the horizon; the internal and external coordinate
systems are not related to each other.

Cheers!

Eric
_________________________________
Eric Poisson
Professor of Physics
University of Guelph

That's why most on this forum are also comfortable in the notion that you are delusional.
And of course it just proves your whole dishonest nature.
Why are you not posting in the alternative section?

My views align with what the evidence shows.Full stop..pure and simple.
BHs are near certain to exist...no other explanation is available.
The BB is near certain for the reasons I have told you before.
Cosmological redshift denotes that the further galaxies are receding at near "c" due to spacetime expansion.
The fact that the CMBR is everywhere uniformly infers it is the left over heat from the BB.
We have much overwhelming evidence for time dilation.

Now if you want to discuss alternative notions re these explanations, be big enough to do it in the proper section.

You have commented on my views only, what are your views ??

Regarding Dr Poisson, he has categorically stated that coordinate time inside and outside EH cannot be linked, that is given in the formula (math for you) on my post #7, the question was pretty simple to you, if Time Inside EH has no connect with the time outside EH, then how the stuff inside is able to affect the objects outside EH in real time?

Now you will jump to fossil field, non linearity and all......so the next point is our Galaxy is moving towards say Andromeda, that means our BH at GC is also not translationally static, it is also moving towards Andromeda, you mean to say this fossil filed is also moving ? You mean to say that at t = 0 some part of spacetime with respect to (CMBR) as occupied by BH was infinitely curved and t = t1, the BH has left its hold on this part and a new part is curved ? Where is the fossility in this ?? So, Paddoboy..these are not for you, just read those Prof Hamilton type analogy or lurk around on such forums, but stay away from venturing out anything at this age...you have no idea what a vast subject you are trolling upon.

 

[OnlyMe]

Hi Tashja,

I believe paddoboy has answered the question as thoroughly
as anyone can. As he says, the question has no answer,
because there is no link between an interval of coordinate
time inside the horizon and an interval of coordinate time
outside the horizon; the internal and external coordinate
systems are not related to each other.

Cheers!

Eric
_________________________________
Eric Poisson
Professor of Physics
University of Guelph

Professor Poisson is talking about interpretation of theoretical prediction. I don't believe that any of the professors insist that any of the models presented are exact descriptions of reality. They are trying to make sense of predictions that lie within an area of space and space time that remains beyond our ability to observe.

It also appears that the professors either are unaware of the overall temper of the argument here.., or are just ignoring it. Most of this thread is composed of personalized mud slinging, which could be reduced to.., "You're a stupid head .., No you're are the stupid head!"

My views align with what the evidence shows.Full stop..pure and simple.
BHs are near certain to exist...no other explanation is available.
The BB is near certain for the reasons I have told you before.
Cosmological redshift denotes that the further galaxies are receding at near "c" due to spacetime expansion.
The fact that the CMBR is everywhere uniformly infers it is the left over heat from the BB.
We have much overwhelming evidence for time dilation.

Paddoboy, your above comments are not based on evidence. They are logical extensions of theory and speculation.

Black holes are a prediction of GR, but have not been confirmed to exist. What we have is observations consistent with what has been predicted. I am not saying that they do not exist. I am saying that your certainty is not any part of science. The mind of science remains open...

The same applies to the Big Bang model, it is a best guess.., working backward into the past from what we do know... But it too requires that a number of yet theoretical assumptions be treated as having been proven.

The uniformity of the CMBR again is a best guess solution based on assumptions, including the Big Bang model, which have not yet been proven.

Your last line re time dilation is at least accurate and without debate.., but it does not resolve the debate as to just what time is, in the context of time dilation...., at least in lay discussion.

Now if you want to discuss alternative notions re these explanations, be big enough to do it in the proper section.

The problem I have had and spoken out about lately regarding this last above statement, is that you seem to believe that anything that does not fit precisely inline with your admitted lay understanding, should not be discussed in a physics section of the forum. And to enforce that you drag discussions in to personal conflict. There is no science involved in statements that can be reduced to, "You're a stupid head!", and that seems to me to sum up the temperament, of most of what you and others in the discussion post.

Theoretical physics is full of alternative speculations. Most go nowhere, but on occassion an idea (that itself falls by the roadside), initiates a deeper understanding or new approach to a particular problem, that winds up with legs. Progress starts with new ideas, speculation, rethinking old ideas and sometimes reinventing the wheel. It never begins, by rejecting everything different than what we already believe to be true.

Most of what we think we know is just that, what we think we know! The truth and what Of theoretical physics, is real.., is something that right now only the future knows.

 

[OnlyMe]

You have commented on my views only, what are your views ??

Regarding Dr Poisson, he has categorically stated that coordinate time inside and outside EH cannot be linked, that is given in the formula (math for you) on my post #7, the question was pretty simple to you, if Time Inside EH has no connect with the time outside EH, then how the stuff inside is able to affect the objects outside EH in real time?

Now you will jump to fossil field, non linearity and all......so the next point is our Galaxy is moving towards say Andromeda, that means our BH at GC is also not translationally static, it is also moving towards Andromeda, you mean to say this fossil filed is also moving ? You mean to say that at t = 0 some part of spacetime with respect to (CMBR) as occupied by BH was infinitely curved and t = t1, the BH has left its hold on this part and a new part is curved ? Where is the fossility in this ?? So, Paddoboy..these are not for you, just read those Prof Hamilton type analogy or lurk around on such forums, but stay away from venturing out anything at this age...you have no idea what a vast subject you are trolling upon.

Rajesh, when we get comment from outside experts, it is almost exclusively an attempt to clarify or explain some aspect of theoretical physics. They are seldom saying this is what is real, period. You seem to me, to confuse theoretical prediction and speculation, as being a confirmed description of reality.

One of the professors in an earlier thread, and I paraphrase.., after commenting about spacetime inside of an event horizon and singularities, as described and/or predicted by GR, added.., mathematical singularities do not exist and intuitively the mass of a black hole is connected to the space time outside of the even horizon.

All of the experts understand the difference between discussions of theoretical implications and what intuition and logic tells us. It does not seem you are able to make that distinction.

We can either discuss theory, or speculate on what is real, as it relates to things so distant and beyond direct experience, that we have no way know what is real and is just imagination.

Are you wanting to discuss theory or what you imagine? Black neutron stars (BNS) as you initially presented have been demonstrated inconsistent with our best understanding of gravitation. The closest alternative presented is a Gravstar, whose radius is greater than the Schwarzschild radius for the involved mass. Even then as presented there has been argument against the idea that, a Gravstar would be consistent with what we currently observe, as consistent with predictions of a black hole.

So again, if what you are really wanting to do is explore imagination, there is likely a better subforum. If you want to discuss the theory of black holes and what limited evidence we have that supports their existence, move with the evidence presented in the discussion.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, your above comments are not based on evidence. They are logical extensions of theory and speculation.

That is total unmitigated bullshit.
The BB for example is based on at least three pillars of evidence.

Black holes are a prediction of GR, but have not been confirmed to exist. What we have is observations consistent with what has been predicted. I am not saying that they do not exist. I am saying that your certainty is not any part of science. The mind of science remains open...

It appears you want a bet each way.
Until anyone can give a realistic source for the effects we see, BHs are the accepted solution. Yep, the mind of science remains open, but not so open that all your brains fall out.

The same applies to the Big Bang model, it is a best guess.., working backward into the past from what we do know... But it too requires that a number of yet theoretical assumptions be treated as having been proven.

There's that bet each way again.
Evidence for the BB:
[1]The observed expansion:[2] The CMBR:[3]Abundance of lighter elements:

The uniformity of the CMBR again is a best guess solution based on assumptions, including the Big Bang model, which have not yet been proven.

Wrong: The uniformity of the CMBR is observed and is evidence that in the past, the universe/spacetime, was a much hotter, denser place.

Your last line re time dilation is at least accurate and without debate.., but it does not resolve the debate as to just what time is, in the context of time dilation...., at least in lay discussion.

Who's talking about what time is? This appears to confirm why my claims of your agenda [my posting methods which you don't like] are genuine.
I mean why bring in the nature of time when the question/matter at hand is the fact of time dilation.
Seriously OnlyMe, you need to rethink your strategy.

The problem I have had and spoken out about lately regarding this last above statement, is that you seem to believe that anything that does not fit precisely inline with your admitted lay understanding, should not be discussed in a physics section of the forum. And to enforce that you drag discussions in to personal conflict.

Wrong on both counts. I object to our alternative clowns pushing their unevidenced thoughts as fact. And again as I have told you before, I will return fire to those that chose to insult me.
Worth noting also, that some of your own posts have been less than complimentary and have been rather personal regarding the clown in question.
That is until you decided to give up on him.

It never begins, by rejecting everything different than what we already believe to be true.

Most of what we think we know is just that, what we think we know! The truth and what Of theoretical physics, is real.., is something that right now only the future knows.

Most of what we think we know, is based on current knowledge, observations and experiments. That stands until new observations come to light that "may"change things.
I will continue to present the picture of present day cosmology as is and to the best of my ability.

 

[paddoboy]

Rajesh, when we get comment from outside experts, it is almost exclusively an attempt to clarify or explain some aspect of theoretical physics.

It appears you have changed your mind OnlyMe. Were you not giving up on the obstinacy of rajesh?
That's OK, we all have our reasons for everything.