No, the light never reaches the "actual" black hole, so you will still be able to see the object forever. |
|
The light would "sit there" forever, but we would stop seeing it. The object's trip passed the event horizon would take it to a point where the photons would never reach our eyes, rendering it invisible. That is precisely why we do not see the huge blobs of mass that give black holes their gravitational pull (the collapsed star). It is not because they are invisible. It is because the light never bounces off of them and reaches us. It hits the object, tries to bounce off, but gets drawn back by the insane gravitational pull of the object, which is the same thing that happens to anything that travels passed the event horizon - including the hypothetical dancing man. |
|
Last edited by Oneironaut Zero; 07-30-2008 at 04:07 AM.
Dream Journal: Dreamwalker Chronicles Latest Entry: 01/02/2016 - "Hallway to Haven" (Lucid)(Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)
No, the light never reaches the "actual" black hole, so you will still be able to see the object forever. |
|
Dream Journal: Dreamwalker Chronicles Latest Entry: 01/02/2016 - "Hallway to Haven" (Lucid)(Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)
No, it stops. |
|
|
|
I'm not refuting relativity. I'm simply saying that relativity must be looked at for what it is (a different frame of reference). Something can seem to still be existent, to someone outside of that frame of reference, but whether something does or does not exist, cosmically, is much more absolute, is it not? (As far as the relativity, I'm honestly asking, as I'm not 100% sure). |
|
Dream Journal: Dreamwalker Chronicles Latest Entry: 01/02/2016 - "Hallway to Haven" (Lucid)(Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)
I think so. The star does not exist any more, according to our now. If we put a mirror out of the direct line between us and that star that reflected its light towards us (ie increased the time it takes for the light to get here), following that logic we'd have to say that the star is simultaneously at two different points in its life according to us. What is true is that both things we are seeing are actually wrong, and that the star is indeed objectively dead at that time, even though we might not know it. Relativity and how long it takes to see something are separate. |
|
Ok, good. That was exactly my point in the previous post. No matter where we are, and what frame of reference we are observing from, there has to be a cosmic truth (in this case, at least). As is the case with the dancing man falling into a black hole. The question of whether or not the man is alive or dead (due to spaghettification) is not necessarily relative. There is an absolute truth (which would, most accurately, be determined by the reference point of the man who's actually undergoing the S-ification). When he's dead - from his own frame of reference - he's dead, no matter what an outsider sees. |
|
Last edited by Oneironaut Zero; 07-30-2008 at 04:49 AM.
Dream Journal: Dreamwalker Chronicles Latest Entry: 01/02/2016 - "Hallway to Haven" (Lucid)(Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)
I never addressed this one directly, but you are both right and wrong. The light (just as everything that goes into a black hole) just sits around the black hole. That part is true (well, sort of true, because most things that get sucked into a black hole are turned to cosmic dust, because the gravity is too great for anything to just "sit" there without being atomized). But it's not the light's existence, alone, that makes us able to see objects. It is light bouncing off of a surface and into our eyes that allows us to see it. |
|
Last edited by Oneironaut Zero; 07-31-2008 at 05:23 AM.
Dream Journal: Dreamwalker Chronicles Latest Entry: 01/02/2016 - "Hallway to Haven" (Lucid)(Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)
I think the theoretical dancing man would be spaghettified to a more than fatal extent long before he reached the event horizon. After all, the event horizon is where gravity is so strong, not even light can escape its pull. |
|
"Above All, Love"
~Unknown~
Dream Journal: Dreamwalker Chronicles Latest Entry: 01/02/2016 - "Hallway to Haven" (Lucid)(Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)
There seems to be some lingering confusion here. |
|
When the outsiders see the man as frozen, for them he is not dead. |
|
A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service
and compassion are the things which renew humanity.
Buddha
҉
҈҈My music҈҈
That's right, dodo. Although practically speaking he would be dead. But if we're talking theoretically, then yes. |
|
The problem I see with using black holes as time machines (in any direction) is that their gravity is too strong for anything we can make to survive. All matter breaks down at the speed of light. |
|
"Above All, Love"
~Unknown~
Does being in a strong gravitational field in free space kill you though? All that happens as far as I can see is that all your atoms are accelerated at the same rate. |
|
No, it doesn't matter what speed a thing is going. Speed is relative. The gravity would be a problem, of course, but I'm just speaking theoretically. |
|
Yeah, that was my point; only if there was a difference in G and hence F=Gm then there would be an overall tension force pulling you apart. If you're in an immensely strong but constant field then I don't see how any harm could come to you, you'd just accelerate... |
|
Space time isn't distorted with a constant depression, it is curved, but with black holes, this curvature of space time would be so great that the forces at your feet would be significantly greater than at your head. So basically, your feet are trying to accelerate faster than your head. All the while, the space-time is becoming more constricted, so you are not only being pulled apart but also squeezed. |
|
Last edited by bluefinger; 07-31-2008 at 07:57 PM.
-Bluefinger v1.25- Enter the madness that are my dreams (DJ Update, non-LD)
"When you reject the scientific method in order to believe what you want, you know that you have failed at life. Sorry, but there is no justification, no matter how wordy you make it."
- Xei
DILD: 6, WILD: 1
Yes it's all there in my first sentence. |
|
Temporal paradoxes only exist in the old Jules Verne model of time travel, which unfortunately is used in sci-fi even to this day. The quantum model, called the Many Worlds Interpretation, has no paradoxes. So which model do you think is correct, the one invented by a 19th century author or the one developed using modern physics? |
|
Come on, you know that's wrong. The many worlds interpretation (you know what that word means..?) is one of the many interpretations of quantum theory, and actually it's currently a minority view. |
|
It is one of the interpretations of quantum theory, but in terms of time travel, it's the leading theory, other than simply saying you can't time travel. |
|
You can't ignore all theories which say you can't go back in time. |
|
Bookmarks