The illusive Nature of Time

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,732
But it certainly doesn't flow faster than space. Therefore the perception of a moving black hole is so great that I challenge anyone to find a reputable astronomer that will deny their existence, placement, or movement.

Also, we need to consider that a black hole has mass. Therefore, it magically fits into Einstein (nice to meet you, btw) relativity theory.

Therefore(#2), Since T=D/V ,we must accept that time does not stop(formula), it exists in space(has mass), and contains a blinding amount of energy(e=mc^2). Sounds kinda plausible.
Time does stop for the one approaching the black hole, to the observer watching. To the one at the edge of the event horizon, time flows seemingly normally.
Note:

9350

rs is the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole (the radius of the event horizon.)
r is the radial (perpendicular) distance of the traveler from the event horizon.
Now look what happens to the term on the right when rs=r.


To any observer further away from the black hole, whatever approaches the black hole would appear to freeze permanently at the instant it touched the event horizon.

Harte
 

SinisterThinking

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2020
Messages
73
Exactly, It requires perception to be true. So does time actually stop? Although Schwarzschild doesn't really play a role because any star approaching the event horizon can be visibly seen moving into the hole. That's one of the proofs related to the movement of the black hole. Time cannot stop as long as it remains measurable.
 

dimension-1hacker

Active Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
841
Exactly, It requires perception to be true. So does time actually stop? Although Schwarzschild doesn't really play a role because any star approaching the event horizon can be visibly seen moving into the hole. That's one of the proofs related to the movement of the black hole. Time cannot stop as long as it remains measurable.
Can you prove that perception is needed for things to exist?
my maybe temporary proofs are:
Nothing can move itself physically, it seems only consciousness can cause itself as understanding is more then the physical system, understanding is the system knowing itself which is different then a physical process as understanding requires something to not be apart yet understand multiple things. We are part of the system and consciousness or thinking about the system whatever that means is the only way seemingly the system can understand itself. Since consciousness is based off my current understanding at-least is the thing that connects one thing to another thing by causing itself, as based off process of elimation physical objects cannot cause themselves to move but things are moving, it could be a property but what I can't describe with my understanding of language, and consciousness is seemingly the only other unknown. Therefore consciousness is the thing that causes itself as nothing to what I understand now has that ability consciousness determines the way everything is because consciousness is the only thing causes everything to be the way it is. everything needs a cause therefore there are an infinite amount of causes yet no cause can be called a cause if it did not cause itself, and if only consciousness does that, where you are depends on your visual internal perception of the external world, and what the external world you may be perceiving accurately is determined by your perception. Some, well a large amount of mental degradation won't prevent me from knowing or think I know that.
 
Last edited:

Blix1ms0ns

Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
188
Shouldn't this discussion be on time travel discussion rather than time travel claims.
On a semi related note if there is a "one second per second" claim loophole be closed?
 

dimension-1hacker

Active Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
841
Shouldn't this discussion be on time travel discussion rather than time travel claims.
On a semi related note if there is a "one second per second" claim loophole be closed?
my "claim" is based of philosophical proofs based off perceived logic.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,732
Exactly, It requires perception to be true. So does time actually stop? Although Schwarzschild doesn't really play a role because any star approaching the event horizon can be visibly seen moving into the hole. That's one of the proofs related to the movement of the black hole. Time cannot stop as long as it remains measurable.
You can't see anything moving into the hole unless you're there moving in with it.
What's been seen is gas orbiting a black hole. Any of it that touches the event horizon is still there now, to us.

And time only stops for the observer, and the time that stops is not the observer's time, it's the time on the object he's observing in the black hole gravity well. You can say that time actually doesn't stop in the overall sense, because for the object, nothing seems different about the flow of time.

I'd point out that if the roles were reversed and the observer was falling into the hole (and somehow watching another person not in the gravity well,) then to the falling observer time would stop for that other person. So it works both ways.

But, yes, the flow of time depends on observation, just like the rest of reality.

Harte
 

SinisterThinking

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2020
Messages
73
You can't see anything moving into the hole unless you're there moving in with it.

Do you see the earth move through space? We are definitely moving with it.
It's excruciatingly slow but it is certainly measurable.You can also assume visibility when your dealing with wavelength.



What's been seen is gas orbiting a black hole. Any of it that touches the event horizon is still there now, to us.

Here's the problem with that observation. Imagine that you are standing right in front of an oncoming tornado. Let's assume that tornado is 4 light years away. Knowing the nature of a tornado you must assume it's moving. At that moment you measure it's distance, that distance changes by V/T. The change is measurable thus making it observable.

And time only stops for the observer, and the time that stops is not the observer's time.

Either time stops or time does not stop. Time isn't a thing. It's merely a "ratio-oriented" measurement. More importantly, that measurement is a human construct AND requires measurable change to occur.


I'd point out that if the roles were reversed and the observer was falling into the hole (and somehow watching another person not in the gravity well,) then to the falling observer time would stop for that other person. So it works both ways.

There is no way to apply conjecture to a black hole. Scientists are far from having any understanding of the "event horizon".

But, yes, the flow of time depends on observation, just like the rest of reality.

Observations aren't always visible.
Now you are buying into Brian Greene's(I think that's his name) ideas of "sensations". Reality is easily acceptable. It's not rocket science.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,732
Time is relative. Thus the name "Relativity." So are the other three dimensions we can experience.

If you observe action, and all motion instantly stops, then time has stopped where you were observing.

Lambeau Field is ripped from the Earth and flung into a black hole. While it's on its way, you whip out your telescope so that you don't miss the Packers game. The kickoff sails 25 yards then the ball stops in midair and hangs there. Time stopped.

Now, Lambeau Field is ripped from the Earth and flung into a black hole, but you had season tickets so you are there. You watch the entire game, eat sausage like a hog and drink too many beers. The Packers win. Since you're off the Earth, you decide to stay in your seat. You watch every Packers home game and see them fail in the post season. Time didn't stop. But when you look back at the Earth, you see that time has stopped there.

Call it what you want. That's the way it works.

Harte
 

Top