I offer the open challenge to coordinate a worldline using the Schwarzschild metric or a transformation thereof across the event horizon with exact coordinates above, on and below the event horizon.
From what I have yet seen it cannot be done.
The event horizon is a lightlike and therefore null surface that serves as an irremovable singulartiy for timelike geodesics and worldlines. Therefore I submit that particles do not penetrate the event horizon.
Particles falling into the black hole never enter a black hole interior, therefore they must become highly energetic in extreme gravitational curvature. The behavior they exhibit is called asymptotic darkness, which is more like a phase of matter that incorporates the creation of inverted spacetime that can be thought of as 'white hole bubbles' in a kind of morass.
When I independantly discovered it I called it 'spacetime boiling' so you can also think of it like that.
Whatever the case, the white hole bubbles, (Which have hyper-pseudospherical geometry) can form Einstein-Rosen bridges with other black holes, creating mysterious curvature, and thus unknown gravity in our universe. This is where "dark matter" comes from.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
why dont you just phone up an actual physicist and ask them
Solivagus
Quoted By:
>>13474626 I appreciate seeing the effort so many put into all their imaginary audiences.
Anonymous
>>13474626 I have to admit your theory does make sense but how can we ever proof it with an experiment?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13474626 How about you come up with some actual maths instead of reposting your brain fart every day? No one is going to do it for you.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
Solivagus
>>13474693 And if the proof doesn't shut your audience up will you simply hop between echo chambers until you find those that tell you what you want to hear?
>Curiously. Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13474746 I am sick of the grousing. I've offered up the exact description of the formulation that will force me to abandon the theory. Shouldn't you be concerned that no one has done it yet? Seems like a big problem to me.
Solivagus
>>13474863 As your audience why should I be concerned that nobody has done it yet?
Also please note I am not complaining, simply presenting generalised difficulties.
Anonymous
>>13474958 >As your audience why should I be concerned that nobody has done it yet? Because the theory has been around for a hundred years and the smartest and most educated minds in history have never been able to do it, apparently.
Solivagus
>>13474958 >>13474863 Allow me to expand. Any audience will always consist of members that are either including or excluding the presenter or the presentation. While most would prefer or enjoy their audience to be silent and appreciative, that is simply an imagined ideal that an individual has to engage in order to create their presentation and some forget to detach that perspective.
However a further question arises: Do you need key people or a large group? The difference here being that key people allow for precision and specialised approaches and large groups require distribution and delegation for whatever your theory is to become standard fare for humanity.
>>13474968 Both the mind and history itself are inherently abstractions to begin with, as in they are both focal points that exist purely because independent processes agree.
What is the assumed value gained from said proof?
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13474982 What are you babbling about?
I'm raising an objection and it's yet to be adequitely answered.
Let's see what happens.
Solivagus
>>13475114 >What are you babbling about? That's essentially my question for you. The ability or willingness to clarify is vital for any joint venture.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13475140 I won't repeat myself.
Solivagus
>>13475200 Then how are you going to convince any audience if you aren't willing to cover or close the gaps?
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13475220 Is my proposition coherent enough that you could repeat it back to me in your own words? Try it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13474626 > The event horizon is a lightlike and therefore null surface Prove it. Since it is not true you'll have some difficulty with that.
Solivagus
Quoted By:
>>13475226 My field and discipline interprets the narrative you've presented as simply the transition of measured states and their isolates based on a given terminology and defined/known interactions. The way it is presented demonstrates a lack of flexibility with audience types and opts for language that presumes the obvious (which implies elitism) instead of promoting the natural conclusion of elements you introduce.
Your proposition doesn't establish anything sufficiently rigorous in terms of presenting a cooperative or conclusive approach. One can either address the human or the idea that human is attempting to present or represent and I can only comment that the idea sounds like you want acceptance from an old boys club who aren't actually interested in collaborating for public benefit and simply reinforce their ranks with those whom others identify as enjoy sniffing their own farts.
Points for confidence but marks off for how you've handled it so far.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>13475311 >>13475272 Exact same fucking problem as all other coordinate systems I have come across. Another variant of (1 - 2GM/r) as a multiplier. This equals zero. As usual the coordinates do one of two things at the event horizon, collapse to zero or explode to infinity. In this case: collapse.
Let me give a hint to my autism. I imediately look for some variation of (1-r/2GM) if it's added or subtracted, no problem. If it's multiplied or divided then I know it will fail at 2GM.
Anonymous
OP? Did you off yourself?
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13475465 Opposite. I've decided to stick around here and just make noise on the regular.
Anonymous
>>13475436 >This equals zero. And?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13475470 OK, well you got BTFO by
>>13475272 which gives an exact worldline with no singularity at the event horizon.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13475503 Let me rephrase. It becomes a non-arbitrary zero.
This zero means the surface of the event horizon is exactly the same. It is a lightlike surface, a null surface that, by definition, excludes particles with mass from existing upon it and thus excludes the chance that they would cross it.
The coordinate transformation argument will ALWAYS fail because it is based on the fallacious axiom that the nature of the null surface will change with a change of coordinates. The event horizon is a null surface in all coordinate systems for all solutions for every observer. End of argument.
Anonymous
>>13474626 Is there any reason to think that the Schwarzhild metric is still valid as r/rs approaches unity?
Anonymous
>>13475671 >This zero means the surface of the event horizon is exactly the same. Exactly the same as what? It has no bearing on the movement of the raindrop across the event horizon. t is just an arbitrary coordinate. Your attempt to move the goalposts is not working.
>It is a lightlike surface, a null surface that, by definition, excludes particles with mass from existing upon it and thus excludes the chance that they would cross it. Wrong, it excludes particles from REMAINING upon it, not passing through it. All it means is that light can stay on the horizon forever.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13475701 Just talking pure spacetime as coordinates approach the horizon time slows down and length is contracted. One way of looking at this is that as the coordinates approach the light like surface they become 'more like light.' That's an easy way to think of it, right?
So add a massive particle to the mix. As that particle approaches the horizon it is also made 'more like light' (photons) but this particle is not made of photons and at some point it comes up against a relativistic wall the energy of interacting in this space induces a new phase of matter called asymptotic Darkness.
This phase of matter is both the makeup of black holes and the makeup of the asymptotic darkness epoch; the state of the universe before the big bang.
>>13475763 Of anything I am doing, moving the goalposts is quite the opposite. I'm trying to keep them exactly as they are: the event horizon as a lightlike null surface, which it is but I have to battle a century of nonsense conjecture. From its inception the path of massive particles to the event horizon has been presupposed as valid. Collapsing and exploding coordinates at the event horizon have been handwaved in favor of a conclusion with no valid mathematical framework.
You don't just get to assume particles pass the event horizon when the coordinates are null! Stop joining the chorus in jumping to conclusions.
Anonymous
>>13475924 >Of anything I am doing, moving the goalposts is quite the opposite. You asked for exact coordinates for a worldline of a particle crossing the event horizon. You were given them. Now you're complaining about a coordinate being zero. How is this not moving the goalposts?
>From its inception the path of massive particles to the event horizon has been presupposed as valid. I just gave you coordinates which shows exactly how it's valid. You have no response.
>You don't just get to assume particles pass the event horizon when the coordinates are null! What does the coordinate being null have to do with whether a particle passes? I've asked you this already and you didn't explain. Again, no one is assuming anything, I just gave you the wordline of the particle passing through the event horizon. You were literally given what you asked for, yet you continue to behave as if it doesn't exist. The only one making an assumption at this point is you, and that assumption is falsified.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13476191 I fully acknowledge you gave me the coordinates. I also fully acknowledge that the coordinates collapse at the event horizon. Is your ignorance willful at this time?
This is not hard to understand. In these coordinates no worldlines have distinguished coordinates for time at the event horizon. It doesn't matter when they approach or from where their time values are all zero. Thus they cannot be coordinated against one another. While others have skirted around my direct request you went for it and exactly proved my point. World lines cannot be coordinated to the event horizon in the transformation presented because of the collapse of the time coordinates.
Solivagus
Quoted By:
No, I'm Spartacus!
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13476739 By the way, what I'm describing here is a lightlike surface. That should be obvious but I get the feeling I have to be explicit in these threads.
Coming back to my point: the null surface of the event horizon cannot be transformed away.
Anonymous
>>13476739 >I also fully acknowledge that the coordinates collapse at the event horizon. Which has no relevance to whether the particle passes through it. One would think that you would be able to explain why you think t=0 is relevant when this is the crux of your argument, but you have repeatedly failed to do so.
>In these coordinates no worldlines have distinguished coordinates for time at the event horizon. And what does that mean for the particle? Again the "time" coordinate is arbitrary, it has no relevant meaning.
>Thus they cannot be coordinated against one another. This is gibberish. All that matters is that the metric as a whole is invertible. You can calculate the position, proper time, speed, etc. of the particle moving through. You're not actually saying anything, just assuming it can't move through with no basis.
Anonymous
>>13476803 >By the way, what I'm describing here is a lightlike surface. Yes, which you don't seem to understand. Lightlike surfaces do not block particles, the just can't have particle remain on them.
>the null surface of the event horizon cannot be transformed away. No need to transform it away. Non sequitur. Only the apparent singularity needs to be transformed away, which was already done.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13476851 >Lightlike surfaces do not block particles, the just can't have particle remain on them. Distinction without a difference.
Anonymous
>>13476739 >ask for wordline of particle moving through the EV >shown wordline of particle moving through the EV >NO IT CAN'T MOVE THROUGH THE EV BECAUSE I SAY SO Solivagus
Quoted By:
>>13476888 Those trips though.
Anonymous
>>13476885 >Distinction without a difference. The difference is clear if you have any idea what you're talking about. The particle spends no time on the surface when it passes through, remaining on the surface would mean spending nonzero time on the surface.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13476839 >And what does that mean for the particle? Again the "time" coordinate is arbitrary, it has no relevant meaning. The collapse of the time coordinate I'd NOT arbitrary. It emerges from the metric and is inherent to all transformations of Schwarzschild as either singularities or zeroes.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13476888 No. It can't move through it, not because I say so but because time has collapsed to a non-arbitrary zero in this coordinate system that excludes massive particles. I'm not saying how l see it I'm yelling how it is.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13476904 Define "when" in a coordinate system in which the time coordinate has collapsed to zero.
Again. You cannot distinguish the difference. How long is the massive particle on the event horizon and how do you know and how long is that time in a metric where time is zero?
You getting a sense of the problem here?
Distinction without a difference.
Anonymous
>>13476906 >The collapse of the time coordinate I'd NOT arbitrary. Then explain what relevance it has to the particle's movement.
>It emerges from the metric and is inherent to all transformations of Schwarzschild as either singularities or zeroes. That's nice, but it's still arbitrary. Can you show that this means the particle takes infinite proper time to pass the event horizon? Or show its speed approaches 0 as it gets closer to the event horizon? No, you can't because the GP coordinates already showed the opposite. You lose. No amount of whining about t=0 will refute what was already proven.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13476915 >It can't move through it, not because I say so but because time has collapsed to a non-arbitrary zero in this coordinate system Doesn't follow. What does the time coordinate being zero mean for the particle? Apparently it means nothing since the worldline goes through just fine. There is no logic behind your argument.
>that excludes massive particles How?
>I'm not saying how l see it I'm yelling how it is. You're yelling a non sequitur.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13476928 >Define "when" in a coordinate system in which the time coordinate has collapsed to zero. Just use proper time. How hard is this? It's like you just read some buzzwords and never actually learned physics.
>You cannot distinguish the difference. I just did, unless you're going to argue 0 > 0.
What a waste of time.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13476942 >Then explain what relevance it has to the particle's movement Speed = distance / time
Time = 0 therefore singularity.
Anyway you've already confirmed my position with your ambiguous statement that particles cannot "remain" on the lightlike surface of the event horizon.
You gave me absolutely no qualifications on what it means to "remain" there is even a fraction of Plank time considered "remaining?"
Yes. I agree with you, as you said the null surface of the event horizon inhibits particles from "remaining" on the event horizon for even a moment of time.
Anonymous
>>13476989 >Speed = distance / time Wrong, learn basic calculus.
Speed is |dr/dt| which in GP is sqrt(2M/r). At the event horizon it's 1.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13476989 >Anyway you've already confirmed my position with your ambiguous statement that particles cannot "remain" on the lightlike surface of the event horizon Hardly ambiguous. Your willful ignorance of basic meaning is not an argument.
>Yes. I agree with you, as you said the null surface of the event horizon inhibits particles from "remaining" on the event horizon for even a moment of time. Good, so you agree the particles pass through instead of staying on the event horizon like light does. Not that we needed to agree since the worldline in GP already shows it moving through.
Solivagus
Anonymous
Shizos take your pills. You guys will never get laid!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13475924 My implication was that the Schwarzchild metric may only be valid as a kind of far-field (r/rs >> 1) limit. Consider if, instead, there is a more complex metric that applies to the near-field (r/rs ~ 1) limit where paths asymptotically approach a lightlike path instead of reaching it at an event horizon.
What we would "see" as an event horizon could instead mark the transition region where the gravitational red-shifting of light becomes so extreme that it goes beyond the limits of what instrumentation can observe instead of some 'hard' boundary in spacetime.
Solivagus
Quoted By:
>>13477209 Why even bother attacking or addressing schizos with concern? Just enjoy the show, like I do!
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13477023 No. In GP there is a multiplier of 1-2m/r. The coordinates drop to zero. We covered and agreed on this.
Furthermore, as I said, we agree on the statement that massive particles do not remain on the event horizon. We could say for some amount of time, but the time coordinate has collapsed which is the problem in the first place.
There are potentially an infinite number of coordinate transformations and none of them change a null surface to anything other than what it is. Mass does not belong there. Ever.
Anonymous
>>13477391 >No. In GP there is a multiplier of 1-2m/r. The coordinates drop to zero. We covered and agreed on this. Non sequitur. That multiplier appears in the speed formula in Schwarzschild coordinates but not in the speed formula in GP coordinates. Oops, looks like you might actually have to learn calculus to talk about physics.
Are you even disagreeing with the speed in GP being sqrt(2M/r)? Because this is something you can look up yourself if the math is too hard for you.
>We could say for some amount of time, but the time coordinate has collapsed which is the problem in the first place. How is it a problem exactly? How many times are you going to fail to answer this question?
>There are potentially an infinite number of coordinate transformations and none of them change a null surface to anything other than what it is. No one said it did.
>Mass does not belong there. You mean mass doesn't remain there.
You haven't even disagreed with the wordline calculated in GP, so you admit the particle passes through. You lost, get over it.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
Quoted By:
>>13477561 You already lied to me about coordinate calculation.
You are not an honest actor.
I stand by everything I said and you may consider yourself dishonest and debunked. Good day.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13474626 Based Eventhorizon anon, keep up the fight.