...the aether...

Ha ha. That's funny.

 

True but of course current has no real meaning unless you are talking about flowing from one definite point to another (and heat is mostly vibrational anyway).

Hi,

Well my view is just because it might be random it still has properties that we see in electronic current flow where a large number of electrons happen to be moving on average in a certain direction. For example, there will still be magnetic fields due to the movement.

 

I think the universe abhors infinities more than physicists do.

In this regard, consider this:

Channeling Neo: There is no singularity.

Why? There has not been enough "time" (nor will there ever be -- from our point-of-view) for matter that created the black hole to pass through the horizon.

Hmmmm.....before you laugh, think about it.

This concept provides for an interesting solution to Hawking Radiation without the need for the generation (and subsequent realization) of virtual particles.

 

Careful here. I've noticed much discussion above about "distance" and "time" in the context of relativistic phenomena. In these realms, there is much argument to be had between individual observers! To claim "smaller" or "bigger" or "faster" or "slower" is only valid with respect to a single observer (or to multiple observers present within the same frame of reference). The significance of this point cannot be understated or ignored.



For the sake of simplicity, can we limit the discussion to non-rotating black holes? While I assume that non-rotating black holes are unlikely to exist, the math just gets unreasonably complicated what with space-time getting all swept up in the rotation and making life difficult for us laymen. For my thought experiments, I'd also like to assume that photons, observers, etc., are travelling perpendicular to the event horizon. This should be good enough for government work.



I am trying to avoid discussion of the physical effects of proximity to a singularity (whether inside or outside of the event horizon). I am well aware that biological entities would encounter difficulty near the event horizon of all but the largest black holes. My questions were more of the line: How does your perception of space/time change as you journey from beyond the event horizon to your final destination at the singularity?

Here is a short part of my (very long) answer:

I think the universe abhors infinities more than physicists do. The curvature of space/time around massive objects is the universe's successful attempt at avoiding infinities. If one can divorce himself from the concept of distance/time, and consider only c as a universal constant (regardless of your position (including within an event horizon)/velocity/acceleration through space), I think the nature of space/time becomes quite clear both near an event horizon and within it.

Again, look up (or down). What do you see?

That's just the thing though. Singularities only exist on paper. And black holes always spin because any imbalance whatsoever would result in a net rotation. They are also extremely compact. Just a single cubic centimeter of the stuff would be as massive as a large city...or more.

And the event horizon is as you describe but again depending on the size of the black hole it might take forever to reach the surface. Like the center of our own galaxy would perhaps do to an observer. Smaller ones just act more like regular stars. Solar systems based on them even.

 

Ha ha. That's funny.

Go on laugh, just like the fish in the ocean and the birds in the sky which sometimes forget that they are immersed in a medium as well. Explain the curvature of spacetime. Curved nothingness?

 

Just a single cubic centimeter of the stuff would be as massive as a large city...or more.

Of what stuff? Where?

Smaller ones just act more like regular stars.

In what sense? And why are bigger ones different?

And the event horizon is as you describe but again depending on the size of the black hole it might take forever to reach the surface.

Might? Provide an example where it will.

And, also be careful of the word "surface". If you mean a two-dimensional locus of points (a spherical sheet for a non-rotating black hole) defining the event horizon -- then I'll agree with the use of the term (though I'd prefer you used the word "horizon"). If you mean something you'll crash into when you fall on it, then I disagree.

 

Curved nothingness?

Absolutely not!

The curvature is defined as the path light follows (a straight line at constant velocity through varying space/time).

 

Go on laugh...

I'm still waiting for the laughs about my comment that "there is no singularity".

 

Wrong! If space were not a medium then accelerated reference frames would be no different from inertial ones.

Coordinate systems (like spacetime) and reference frames are mathematical constructs and have nothing to do with physical media. You are confusing the model for the thing it models.

In the modern view, space is an abstraction, a way to quantify and reason about the universe. It is no more physical than a vector space, or the two "spaces" defined by a closed figure.

 

Coordinate systems (like spacetime) and reference frames are mathematical constructs and have nothing to do with physical media. You are confusing the model for the thing it models.

In the modern view, space is an abstraction, a way to quantify and reason about the universe. It is no more physical than a vector space, or the two "spaces" defined by a closed figure.

Wrong again! Consider the speed at which light travels. If a medium did not exist then light could not possible curve it. Yet it indeed can. Space is real. It's the nexus of three dimensions and possibly more. Time is not a dimension in the same sense. But it's effects are obviously intrinsic as well.

 

Go on laugh, just like the fish in the ocean and the birds in the sky which sometimes forget that they are immersed in a medium as well. Explain the curvature of spacetime. Curved nothingness?

The geometry of spacetime is curved.

 

I'm still waiting for the laughs about my comment that "there is no singularity".

I think the consensus of physicists who study such things is that the singularities implied by GR don't really exist, rather they represent the boundary condition at which GR breaks down. Presumably a better, more fundamental theory would clean up the singularities.

 

Absolutely not!

The curvature is defined as the path light follows (a straight line at constant velocity through varying space/time).

Tensors in the aether are manifested in gravitational and electromagnetic fields for example. Again, no medium and everything breaks down.

 

Wrong again! Consider the speed at which light travels. If a medium did not exist then light could not possible curve it. Yet it indeed can.

I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here.

Space is real. It's the nexus of three dimensions and possibly more. Time is not a dimension in the same sense. But it's effects are obviously intrinsic as well.

If space were a physical medium, then we would be able to measure it directly. But we can't -- because space is a useful abstraction, not a thing or object. Whatever the stuff of the universe actually is, it's best modeled by a system of dozens of fields.

 

Tensors in the aether are manifested in gravitational and electromagnetic fields for example. Again, no medium and everything breaks down.

What do tensors in the aether look like?

 

I think the consensus of physicists who study such things is that the singularities implied by GR don't really exist, rather they represent the boundary condition at which GR breaks down. Presumably a better, more fundamental theory would clean up the singularities.

I have a theory: there is only Planck. All else, gravity, electricity, magnetism and so forth stem from it. And to avoid the singularity one must only restrict examination to strictly one dimension. For example, in Pc=(PmPt)^(1/2) where c/m/t stand for Planck charge/mass/time. No singularity. Charge is just a function of Planck mass and time. That's why all the defining equations start with point-like assumptions. Higher dimensions require more complex math!

 

What do tensors in the aether look like?

Simple, in the one dimensional case it manifests itself as force experienced towards (and away from) the center of the objects in question. For more accuracy, three dimensional calculations might employ partial differential equations expressed in terms of quaternions. (Matrices can result in singularities and otherwise "gimbal lock"-type of situations.)

 

I think the consensus of physicists who study such things is that the singularities implied by GR don't really exist, rather they represent the boundary condition at which GR breaks down.

Agree on the math part. But there also seems to be a consensus (or is this just pop science?) that a singularity of infinite mass density and zero size exists at the center of a black hole. This is impossible from a frame-of-reference outside the event horizon, and I think if one were to survive a fall past the event horizon, he'd find there is no there there.

 

Simple, in the one dimensional case it manifests itself as force experienced towards (and away from) the center of the objects in question.

I'm curious as to how you would account for the (theoretical) equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.

 

I'm curios as to how you would account for the (theoretical) equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.

Almost. Take the first derivative and you get an acceleration. That's equivalent to gravity. In fact, they are effectively identical. Accelerate a body fast enough and it's gravitational "pull" on things increases.

Needless to say the special theory of relativity only applies to inertial frames.