Particles do not cross the event horizon.
The event horizon is null and thus excludes massive particles from existing there.
Time dilation for reaching the event horizon is infinite.
A world line which crosses the event horizon is a violation of relativity.
Coordinate transformations do not change the form of the physics, thus the event horizon is always null.
The interior of the black hole has more volume than a two sphere of the same radius in flat space which indicates that the interior is negatively curved.
Being positively curved on the outside and negatively curved on the inside the spacetime inverts below the event horizon.
The Schwarzschild metric is spherically symmetrical. If a spherical geometry is inverted it produces a pseudosphere which shares the same geometry as a black hole: perimeter coordinate singularity, central physical singularity. However, being one dimension greater the black hole perimeter is spherical, not circular.
The black hole interior is a white hole. Gravity on this surface is repulsive.
As particles fall into the black hole they gain energy becoming black hole like themselves.
This behavior means that the black hole is not a single horizon with a central singularity but a material object composed of a relativistic form of matter known as Asymptotic Darkness.
Asymptotic darkness may form Einstein-Rosen bridges with distant black holes. This explains black hole spin alignment in clusters and the dark matter phenomenon as the extrinsic curvature affects our universe.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
cool story bro
Anonymous
Quoted By:
what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys? is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Why are there so many schizos on this board now?
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
Quoted By:
More hand waving than usual today.
Anonymous
>>13529446 >Particles do not cross the event horizon. Wrong.
>The event horizon is null and thus excludes massive particles from existing there for nonzero amounts of time. Fixed.
>Time dilation for reaching the event horizon is infinite. Time dilation for whom? An observer falling in reaches the EH in finite time.
>A world line which crosses the event horizon is a violation of relativity. How?
>Coordinate transformations do not change the form of the physics, thus the event horizon is always null. Non sequitur since null doesn't mean what you think it means.
>The interior of the black hole has more volume The volume of a black hole is not well defined.
>which indicates that the interior is negatively curved No.
Not going to bother with the rest of this incompetent babble.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13531140 Your transformation argument remains invalid. It viloates the law of general covariance.
The event horizon remains null in all coordinate transformations.
Anonymous
>>13531140 You see this?
At the event horizon this collapses.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
Anonymous
>>13529446 what do you mean by null ?
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13531140 >>The interior of the black hole has more volume >The volume of a black hole is not well defined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_Schwarzschild_metric ===Volume===
With <math>g_{rr} = (1-r_s r^2/r_g^3)^{-1}</math> and the area <math>A = 4 \pi r^2</math>
the integral for the proper volume is
<math>V = \int_0^{r_g} A \sqrt{g_{rr}} \, {\rm d}r = 2 \pi \left(\frac{r_g^{9/2} \arcsin \sqrt{\frac{r_s}{r_g}}}{r_s^{3/2}}-\frac{r_g^4 \sqrt{1-\frac{r_s}{r_g}}}{r_s}\right)</math>
which is larger than the volume of a euclidean reference shell.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13531917 Lightlike.
Worldlines and timelike geodesics must move through timelike space.
The null surface of the event horizon excludes the possibility of such paths from ever intersecting with it because the spacetime cannot be timelike.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13531891 >It viloates the law of general covariance. How?
>The event horizon remains null in all coordinate transformations. It is null in GP, you just don't understand what null means. This fails to respond to anything I said.
Anonymous
>>13531912 Not in GP. You're not responding to anything I said.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>13531925 >The null surface of the event horizon excludes the possibility of such paths from ever intersecting with it because the spacetime cannot be timelike. Incorrect, it excludes the possibility of wordlines from following a null surface, not intersecting it. This has already been explained to you, so why are you lying?
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13532139 I already illustraited how it collapses in General relativity.
>>13531914 The law of general covariance holds. The form of the physics is not changed by your GP coordinate transformation. The event horizon null surface, the collapsed null geodesics, the closed light cone exists in all coordinate systems.
You're just gaslighting me at this point.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13532185 The entry in wikipedia refers to proper volume.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13532191 Absolutely it forbids intersection because there is no mathematical description for the intersection.
Imagine a proton and on that proton we have a point a and b, both of which give us slightly different, but distinguishble proper time. If point a tucks under the event horizon before point b or vice versa, which we should expect barring deliberate simultaneous coordination then there would be a frame in spacetime where the event horizon is between a and b. Thus, the event horizon would be described as containing a massive particle. This defies the nature of the event horizon and therefore must be rejected out of hand.
Anonymous
>>13532856 >I already illustraited how it collapses in General relativity. It collapses in the coordinate system you used, not in GR.
>The law of general covariance holds Non sequitur. Lightcones are not physical laws. Their tilt is an artifact of the coordinate system you choose.
>The event horizon null surface, the collapsed null geodesics, the closed light cone exists in all coordinate systems. Incorrect. The worldline passes right through the EH in GP, there is no closed lightcone preventing it from passing. You already know this. Why are you lying?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13532862 And your post doesn't. The comparison of proper volume to the volume of a 2-sphere in flat space is meaningless.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13529446 >Time dilation for reaching the event horizon is infinite. Is it? I was thinking like this but currently I am not sure.
Anonymous
>>13533114 >Tilt Oh my god. Are you referencing the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates? The ones derived from the Tortoise coordinates? The tortoise coordinates that are ln(0) at 2GM?
Because that's rich
At the event horizon there is zero dpace between incoming and outgoing null geodesics.
This must be true in all coordinate systems because there are no transformations that will alot space between any lines that are completely converged.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys? is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13532920 >Absolutely it forbids intersection because there is no mathematical description for the intersection. Wrong, there is a clear description in GP, where r=2M.
>Imagine a proton and on that proton we have a point a and b, both of which give us slightly different, but distinguishble proper time. Meaningless, when doing the math we are treating any particle as a point particle. Otherwise you might as well argue the EH doesn't exist except as a mathematical abstraction.
>Thus, the event horizon would be described as containing a massive particle. How can it "contain" it when it doesn't even have a and b inside it? LOL. Your argument isn't even self-consistent.
Anonymous
>>13529446 wrong. all wrong. perception of what happens at and passing the event horizon is based on insane bullshit that is even partially dismissed by physicist explaining what they previously said
they say it should appear as if some one hasnt passed the event horizon when they do if you could watch it happen. to the outside observer you would stop and to you well your being spaghetified
however in reality this should not be the case. light would need to bounce off you and make it back to the observer. line of sight and the distortion made by the gravity should prevent it. you sink into inky blackness and vanish before the event horizon. diffusion of light and the warped space exaggerating it should make almost nothing visible getting to close to a black hole. so the diffusion pattern of light being spread farther makes resolution to low to see anything but stray light. the inky blackness is not the event horizon. the point of no return is on paper father out. no man made technology should be able to rebuff it. the ecretion disc isnt the event horizon boundary
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13533248 My reasoning is not strictly observational. It's founded in the nature of worldlines being necessarily coordinated to timelike space.
Null space and spacelike space will not permit even the intersection of a relative worldline.
We may speak of the intersection at the hypersurface of the present but then we will bog ourselves down in Zenos' paradox, which I've also had to deal with.
Let us then conclude that the future light cone, along with timelike space are not intersectional but emergent from the hypersurface of the present as affected by all things causal from the past light cone.
Anonymous
>>13533142 >Are you referencing the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates? No, I'm referencing GR in general. You're the one stuck doodling in one particular coordinate system.
>At the event horizon there is zero dpace between incoming and outgoing null geodesics. But that's wrong, retard. Did you ever do the math? No. Did you ever think that the worldline going through the EH in GP precludes the lightcone from collapsing parallel to it? No. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Anonymous
>>13533285 >Null space and spacelike space will not permit even the intersection of a relative worldline. Because?
Anonymous
>>13533306 Lorentz and Einstein.
The particulate frame will always be timelike. The light frame will always be null.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13533376 There is no such thing as a timelike or lightlike "frame." Only intervals. The intersection is a point, not an interval.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I'm really enjoying this thread even though I have no idea what you guys are actually arguing about.
Anonymous
>>13533300 Just as a tangent. It may be that since I am talking about a negative curvature interior below the horizon the GP coordinates break down because it may be defined as an anti de Sitter space.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10827 Anonymous
>>13533505 Then it has nothing to do with our reality.
Anonymous
>>13533700 Quite the opposite.
This is the part of our reality that shapes our universe while unseen.
I said repeatedly I didn't care about black holes. I wanted a reasonable explanation of dark matter.
The only explanation in the books that could do what dark matter does are Einstein-Rosen bridges.
The only way they can form and be sustained is if there is no mass in the origin singularity. If and when the GP coordinates break down we have anti de Sitter surface that excludes massive particles, same for the event horizon. This may allow for black holes in the centers of galaxies to entangle, align their spins and curve our universe by the connections they form in higher dimensional space.
In any event now that I know that the GP coordinates fail in negatively curved spacetime there's no need to discuss them anymore, they aren't applicable to my theory if they fail.
Anonymous
>>13533750 We're not in anti-de Sitter space. You're just building bullshit on top of bullshit.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
Quoted By:
I won't lie. If I'm not wrong then I know I'm giving away the farm here. I can see the paper titles now. Black hole interiors as hyper-pseudospherical anti de Sitter space. Event Horizon Particle Exclusion. Asymptotic darkness dynamics for systemic gravitational collapse. Einstein-Rosen bridge formation between galactic supermassive black holes: Dark matter and spin alignment The Asymptotic Darkness Epoch: the universe before the big bang. Galactic core black holes as remnants from the Asymptotic darkness Epoch Einstein-Rosen bridge applications to string theory and physical unification. I may not be a physicist but I've been working on this long enough to see to what it all could lead.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13533793 Of course we are not in it but a scalar negative curvature like anti de Sitter space is probably a match for the space the I intend to describe when I talk about black hole interiors. In any event it's more than enough cause for me to say the I think the coordinates you are presenting fail, just as the article I posted indicates.
Anonymous
>>13533805 someone could resume all that for an undergrad who just got his first GR course ? this seems interresting.
Anonymous
>>13533808 OP is being nonsensical. The scalar curvature in the interior of a Schwarzschild black hole is not negative.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
I have no ambitions in physics. I don't have the skill or training. I just got told something I didn't accept (Dark matter) so I looked through the tool kit of physics for what would explain what I was seeing. Einstein-Rosen bridges were the only things that matched item for item what I was expecting. Independently (crudely) describing asymptotic darkness was the big clue that I was onto the right track. Anyway, there it is.
Anonymous
>>13533819 well from what i heard the event horizon is a coordinate singularity so GR predicts what there is beyond it. from what i remember schwarzschild predicts a positive curvature inside. So OP means metric describing a black hole inside is not schwarzschild ? idk about kerr and other tho
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13533819 You say that and yet I know that the proper volume of a black hole is greater than the volume of a Euclidean reference 2-sphere.
Just as this saddle papercraft is negatively curved when it contains more area than it's Euclidean reference circle I would expect a negatively curved surface within a black hole to have the greater volume.
Anonymous
>>13533805 No you don't get it. The reason GP fails in AdS is because it describes a particle falling towards a black hole from far away, but in AdS the gravity from the black hole is repulsive so nothing can even begin to fall towards it. You're not talking about anything relevant.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
Quoted By:
And remember, I'm not just saying that the interior is negatively curved, I'm describing the geometry explicitly. Coordinate singularity perimeter, physical singularity origin. That's a pseudophere. Well embedded on a plain it's a pseudosphere. Embedded in three dimensional space, bumped up a dimenaion and you have a hyper-pseudosphere. The perimeter is no longer circular. It's spherical.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13533845 The black hole gravity is repulsive. But it's only repulsive below the event horizon.
Anonymous
>>13533836 The Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution, so it is Ricci flat, so its scalar curvature is also zero. The Kretcshmann scalar (norm of the Riemann tensor) on the other hand is positive and diverges as r goes to 0.
>well from what i heard the event horizon is a coordinate singularity so GR predicts what there is beyond it This is well known and I think OP is trying to refute it without even knowing GR in the first place
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13533865 In your imagination, with no basis. If you assume you're correct then you're correct. Also, that doesn't even mean a particle falling towards the black hole can't penetrate the EH, just that it would be deccelerated.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13533843 >You say that and yet I know that the proper volume of a black hole is greater than the volume of a Euclidean reference 2-sphere. So what?
Anonymous
>>13533874 What tells you he dont know GR ? you think OP's what then ?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13533822 So basically you have no clue what you're talking about AND are coming from a position of bad faith. Awesome.
Anonymous
>>13533888 He said in a previous thread that he hadn't studied calculus.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13533874 And the event horizon in Kretcshmann offers up no singularity. I'm aware of that. I don't have a problem with it because I would not expect the null surface to be a physical singularity.
You're not wrong about me.
I'm throwing this out there and going by trial and error. Lots of error.
If I'm not wrong I definitely don't know how to say it the right way. So I shitpost here. Maybe I'll figure out all the nuances to present the idea, maybe not. In any event I like doing it.
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13533899 I have but just the basics. Derivative, integral chain rule. Not tensors or field theory or operator calculus.
But I am NOT in bad faith as someone suggested. I go to sleep thinking about the proto universe as asymptotic darkness formed by uncrossable event horizons before dark energy expanded the universe to rip it all apart, giving birth to our current universe.
Honest engine. I may be wrong. I may be wrong somewhere on a scale of delusional to nuts but that's one of the things I want to say for consideration.
Anonymous
>>13533902 >>13533917 You could just study physics instead of doing all this roundabout bs then
Eventhorizon !!ujqPq/OqEFH
>>13533935 It just bothers me that it's a simple fix, but I can't get someone with real ambitions in physics to try.
I just see the possibility but can't make a compelling case.
So I just want to post on 4chan.
Anonymous
>>13533979 nobody's gonna lose year trying this... right ?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13529446 secure tripcode off
meds on
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13534019 You're probably right, but I don't think it should be a big shock to anyone that our black hole model is wrong. It ruins the big bang model to say the least. Nobody has a model for an exploding singularity and nobody ever will.
Anonymous
what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys? is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>13536282 Hey it's the guy who rages about astronomers every single day. How's it going?