I read somewhere you’d have about a day before getting to the centre and getting ripped to shreds. But, what happens to time inside a BH? Maybe something different happens 🤷♂️
Dunno. A collapsing wave function cannot happen without time. Might be you can write an equation without invoking time directly, but surely as A follows B you have to obey causality.Your basic premise seems to be that time emerges through the expenditure of energy.
Add that to the premise that time emerges through the microscopic dynamics of gravity and I'm no further forward in my understanding of time!
There is a conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics which each regard time in a different way.
Einstein determined that time is relative while in the quantum world time may not even exist!
One thing is certain, as declared by Pliny the Younger in 105, “The happier the time, the shorter it seems.” 😎
The fact that as humans we don’t think time exists, or we think it’s an illusion, or a blank canvas gives me hope that there is a deeper explanation for it.
nism
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-spot-a-bad-scientific-theory-34783d240aff
You can't just trash existing science like this. Whether the Electric Universe guys like it or not, Einstein's field equations (and Maxwell's EM equations) are amongst the most accurate in all of physics. If you are going to come up with a new theory, you need to be at least as accurate as these are.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-spot-a-bad-scientific-theory-34783d240aff
Separately, Ethan here on time and the early universe
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-...mail&utm_content=07/08/23+SWAB&rjnrid=1y4BlkP
(Definitely my favourite science writer along with Sabine Hossenfelder)
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-...mail&utm_content=07/08/23+SWAB&rjnrid=1y4BlkP
(Definitely my favourite science writer along with Sabine Hossenfelder)
Yes he can and will continue to do so.
He is simply hoping for a reaction such as yours.
I suggest you follow in Steve's footsteps: "I have made a mature sensible decision to ignore your insane ramblings."
If it were Einstein, I'd tell him to get on his bike! 😀
His definition of science is also different/relative. No point in responding, a confrontation tends to invite thread closure by the mods.
I saw the recent news release!
Einstein’s mathematics predicts we should see the distant universe playing out in slow motion.
Quasars allow us to see far back in time. The further back we look the more time space has had to stretch and the more the relative nature of clock ticks grows.
;-)
"One of the most amazing discoveries of the past 100 years came in the 1920s and early 1930s: when we established that the more distant a cosmic object is located from us, the more severely its light appears to be shifted to longer and longer wavelengths."
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/time-run-slow-early-universe/?utm_campaign=swab&utm_source=rejoiner&utm_medium=email&utm_content=07/08/23+SWAB&rjnrid=1y4BlkP
Wrong!
a) Edwin Hubble himself contradicted his statement, which, scientifically, was an publication of an unsafe interpretation instead of an observation! So you know little about the work of Edwin Hubble: disrespect Edwin Hubble;-)-;
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466
b) A physical explanation for light red shift not by Doppler effect is given. Which makes the above statement unscientific. It is downright anti-scientific, because it obscures the comprehensive discourse or prooves ignorance)-;
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25323369.pdf
c) Quasars bounded to galaxie - highly different red-shifts. Not the only example;-)
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466
All repetitions only;-)
So only kindergarten;-?! Science and scientists certainly not)-;
"One of the most amazing discoveries of the past 100 years came in the 1920s and early 1930s: when we established that the more distant a cosmic object is located from us, the more severely its light appears to be shifted to longer and longer wavelengths."
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/time-run-slow-early-universe/?utm_campaign=swab&utm_source=rejoiner&utm_medium=email&utm_content=07/08/23+SWAB&rjnrid=1y4BlkP
Wrong!
a) Edwin Hubble himself contradicted his statement, which, scientifically, was an publication of an unsafe interpretation instead of an observation! So you know little about the work of Edwin Hubble: disrespect Edwin Hubble;-)-;
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466
b) A physical explanation for light red shift not by Doppler effect is given. Which makes the above statement unscientific. It is downright anti-scientific, because it obscures the comprehensive discourse or prooves ignorance)-;
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25323369.pdf
c) Quasars bounded to galaxie - highly different red-shifts. Not the only example;-)
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466
All repetitions only;-)
So only kindergarten;-?! Science and scientists certainly not)-;
I think the way this works is you will see time pass more slowly in the early universe from our present perspective. If one was around in the early universe you wouldn’t know.
Possibly the smartest guy to have ever lived still found time to enjoy the simple things in life.
I must debunk this nonsense from @cumbb! Seriously cumbb, I wonder if you live in a dreamworld?
Do your schoolteachers worry about you? Do you have ADHD? We need to know.
The first link is a perfectly sensible Ethan Siegel magazine piece about an expanding Universe which a child of ten can understand.
The second link is about that old NGC 7603/ PGC 71041 chestnut which seemed to defy redshift theories by having different redshift.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_7603
Trouble is that it is now known these galaxies being conjoined is an optical illusion. They are in fact at 400 Mly and 700 Mly respectively.
The Third link is a rather wild alternative to Redshift, which seems a bit of an outsider to me. But, hey, it might be right, I am not qualified to penetrate the gibberish in it.
The fourth link is a repetition of the second link. All in all, another of your seriously time-wasting posts. Perhaps you are not suited to a serious discussion of Gravity and General Relativity? Just sayin'.
Another forum I participate in has an ignore button which can be applied to any member. After using that, I don't see their annoying posts.
I like reading this thread because it points out science news which I was not aware of. 90% of other websites lock my computer op system up, so I don't do much exploring. I tried buying 8 gb memory last year to update, but the DIMMs were the wrong size.
We already knew that the expansion of space doesn't just stretch out wavelengths, but also 'stretches' out time, making observed time intervals appear longer.
The significance of the observations is that quasars have now been shown to exhibit the cosmic time dilation that earlier studies failed to detect.
This answers the question of whether quasars are truly cosmological objects, or even if the idea of expanding space is correct.
Last edited:
As does this forum, and I have made use of it, which certainly makes the thread look much tidier!
Last edited:
That's exactly what I perceive the function of this thread to be - to summarise and share the content of new cosmological studies.
The thread certainly gives me the incentive to look and listen out for new scientific information that might otherwise pass me by.
Aha, I have figured out how the ignore button works! You have to click on the troublesome user, not your own settings! Much better!
Black Hole and Gravity Astrophysics at a more serious level than most magazine sites is to be found at Scholarpedia:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Black_holes
Written by experts in the field, people you have heard of, without being show-off mathematical or techie.
If you are wondering how I do General Relativity and Black Hole calculations so easily, I must admit I have a Math crib sheet courtesy of NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/black_hole_math.pdf
You don't get old without getting crafty!
I am currently beavering away at Black Hole Entropy, here represented in a sort of Quantum Gravity way:
The relevant Math:
Notice how if you double the mass of a Black Hole with, say, a merger, the radius increases by 2, the Area and Entropy by 4, and the volume by 8.
This means that bigger Black Holes get increasingly less dense as they get bigger as observed from outside.
Fairly recent news in Astrophysics is that gravitational waves permanently distort the Spacetime they pass though:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/gravitational-waves-should-permanently-distort-space-time-20211208/
I shall sleep on that one, but I think I have grasped the idea.
Black Hole and Gravity Astrophysics at a more serious level than most magazine sites is to be found at Scholarpedia:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Black_holes
Written by experts in the field, people you have heard of, without being show-off mathematical or techie.
If you are wondering how I do General Relativity and Black Hole calculations so easily, I must admit I have a Math crib sheet courtesy of NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/black_hole_math.pdf
You don't get old without getting crafty!
I am currently beavering away at Black Hole Entropy, here represented in a sort of Quantum Gravity way:
The relevant Math:
Notice how if you double the mass of a Black Hole with, say, a merger, the radius increases by 2, the Area and Entropy by 4, and the volume by 8.
This means that bigger Black Holes get increasingly less dense as they get bigger as observed from outside.
Fairly recent news in Astrophysics is that gravitational waves permanently distort the Spacetime they pass though:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/gravitational-waves-should-permanently-distort-space-time-20211208/
I shall sleep on that one, but I think I have grasped the idea.
Last edited:
Speaking of "the simple things in life," I've seen the following pic before (Albert Einstein playing electric guitar), though in the pic I recall it may have been a Gibson SG, and this Peavey (or even an SG) may be too modern anyway (how young does his face look? What year would it have been?), but it's disappointing it's an edit. I suppose it would have been too much for him to also be a musical genius:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/guitar-genius/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/guitar-genius/