How can anything pass the event horizon of a black hole?

fxhd

chibi warrior
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
646
Location
Gensokyo
Website
shoutokulegendtrueadministrator.tumblr.com
On a serious note though, there are many black holes that suck in and shred matter from stars all the time if I'm not mistaken, and this matter cannot have existed for eternity since the universe has not (according to the current paradigm) existed for an eternity, and the stars can't be older than cosmos itself.
 

Cock

Doctor
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
3,576
Location
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Website
aaa.AAAAA.aaa
I got a fascinating answer one time. Not sure if it is the whole picture or even accurate, but as you know - the more matter the black hole absorbs the more massive it gets. Hence its event horizon expands every time it consumes something. Now consider a single neutron falling in. It will get closer and closer until it is just about "next" to the EH. It cannot actually pass it since time dilation is tending to infinity for an outside observer. What supposedly actually happens is that the fact, that the neutron has come so close to the EH, in of itself increases the mass of the black hole just enough so that the EH expands beyond the distance of this neutron. Pretty creepy if you ask me lol.

Another idea I had was that space itself is falling in and since the expansion and contraction of spacetime is not restricted by special relativity, like matter is, then the matter might "surf" along the falling spacetime into the EH.
 

MrGask

#FreeGask
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
12,133
Location
Yukatan
Website
www.nucleardarkness.org
On a serious note though, there are many black holes that suck in and shred matter from stars all the time if I'm not mistaken, and this matter cannot have existed for eternity since the universe has not (according to the current paradigm) existed for an eternity, and the stars can't be older than cosmos itself.
AFAIK current paradigm postulates this universe has not always existed, but that universes have.
 

MrGask

#FreeGask
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
12,133
Location
Yukatan
Website
www.nucleardarkness.org
So the paradigm is defined by stuff that isn't proven? I mean the multiverse theory hasn't been experimentally confirmed yet has it? (I do believe in it though)
Theories of the universe and its origins are pretty hard to prove. The most we can do with the majority of them is infer them.
On the one hand, I think it is good that humans are always trying to have their reach exceed their grasp, but I also realize that a large percentage of what we put forth eventually is shown to be bullshit.
 

silverhaze06

EDF Hero
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
334
Location
Up ur butt.
Considering that time dilation tends to infinity near the schwarzschild radius then from an observer at a distance will see the falling object redshift and slow down and down. From the objects point of reference does the rest of the universe then end before he corsses the EH or will the black hole (and him) evaporate almost instantly (from the falling objects point of view), because of hawking radiation on testicles creating mutatns faggot ass gay porn wtf rapeog molestation sweet hot cum black dilso HOLE MOTHERF


To answer your retarded question,
 

Cock

Doctor
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
3,576
Location
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Website
aaa.AAAAA.aaa
To answer your retarded question,
You're a fucking nincumpoop, a stupid sack of shit, a pathetic degenerate neanderthal. I've seen that video and it is talking about some stupid hypothesis with little merit. It doesn't even address my specific question about the contradiction caused by time dilation near the EH. Commit suicide you useless pile of biomass.
 

AbeWallard

Boxer by day. Boxerless at night.
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
3,306
It's basically a space whirlpool. Anything lighter can go past the event horizon.
 

silverhaze06

EDF Hero
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
334
Location
Up ur butt.
You're a fucking nincumpoop, a stupid sack of shit, a pathetic degenerate neanderthal. I've seen that video and it is talking about some stupid hypothesis with little merit. It doesn't even address my specific question about the contradiction caused by time dilation near the EH. Commit suicide you useless pile of biomass.

It answers your question exactly. Their would appear to be a contradiction to the outside observer due to visual distortions, but none to the actual object falling in. So to the outside observer, the object would appear to freeze for a bit on the event horizon since that is the point at which Einstein's theory of relativity breaks down. But as this video, and many others like it explain, the actual object doesn't just stop falling. Matter can travel faster than light, provided the space it is occupying is being pulled faster than it. (e.g. inside a black hole.)

And the universe does not end right before the event horizon. It extends well past the event horizon as well. The only thing that changes, is our known and accepted laws of physics. Also, black holes only evaporate after going long periods with absolutely no matter or background radiation feeding them. But a black hole of just one solar mass would take many quintillions of years to evaporate. Much longer than the age of the universe.

So lrn2science. But you should probably lrn2spell before you take on that complicated monstrosity.
 

Cock

Doctor
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
3,576
Location
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Website
aaa.AAAAA.aaa
It answers your question exactly. Their would appear to be a contradiction to the outside observer due to visual distortions, but none to the actual object falling in. So to the outside observer, the object would appear to freeze for a bit on the event horizon since that is the point at which Einstein's theory of relativity breaks down. But as this video, and many others like it explain, the actual object doesn't just stop falling. Matter can travel faster than light, provided the space it is occupying is being pulled faster than it. (e.g. inside a black hole.)

And the universe does not end right before the event horizon. It extends well past the event horizon as well. The only thing that changes, is our known and accepted laws of physics. Also, black holes only evaporate after going long periods with absolutely no matter or background radiation feeding them. But a black hole of just one solar mass would take many quintillions of years to evaporate. Much longer than the age of the universe.

So lrn2science. But you should probably lrn2spell before you take on that complicated monstrosity.
Yes, I also thought about the possibility of the object getting dragged into the EH by "surfing" on spacetime itself, which can go faster than light. However you are contradicting yourself by saying that the video answers my questions and yet Einstein's General relativity breaks down at the EH. GR is all we have to explain these things so without that we have nothing. Hence we don't know what happens.

Also yes you probably wouldn't see the black hole evaporate, because universe would probably end before that happens (be it the big rip or something else).

Also my spelling is fine. What the fuck are you talking about? Some random typos? Don't pretend that you care about those - that's ridiculous.
 

silverhaze06

EDF Hero
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
334
Location
Up ur butt.
Yes, I also thought about the possibility of the object getting dragged into the EH by "surfing" on spacetime itself, which can go faster than light. However you are contradicting yourself by saying that the video answers my questions and yet Einstein's General relativity breaks down at the EH. GR is all we have to explain these things so without that we have nothing. Hence we don't know what happens.

Also yes you probably wouldn't see the black hole evaporate, because universe would probably end before that happens (be it the big rip or something else).

Also my spelling is fine. What the fuck are you talking about? Some random typos? Don't pretend that you care about those - that's ridiculous.

General relativity is not all we have to explain these things. That is where string theory and quantum gravity come into play. You should read up on those.
 

silverhaze06

EDF Hero
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
334
Location
Up ur butt.
Very hypothetical science. I stand my ground by saying "we don't know".

And so was Einstein's theory for many years after it first came out. But they are being accepted more and more by mainstream science everyday, and will only be a matter of time before they are accepted as fact. Because one thing is for sure, Einstein's theory is not correct, because it only tells half the story. It's an excellent starting point, but leaves many questions unanswered. Which is precisely why string theory and quantum gravity have been growing in popularity. It's just a matter of finding enough evidence to say for sure the theory is correct. And with CERN finally saying they have enough evidence to confirm the existence of the Higgs-Boson particle, it won't take very long from this point.
 

Cock

Doctor
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
3,576
Location
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Website
aaa.AAAAA.aaa
And so was Einstein's theory for many years after it first came out. But they are being accepted more and more by mainstream science everyday, and will only be a matter of time before they are accepted as fact. Because one thing is for sure, Einstein's theory is not correct, because it only tells half the story. It's an excellent starting point, but leaves many questions unanswered. Which is precisely why string theory and quantum gravity have been growing in popularity. It's just a matter of finding enough evidence to say for sure the theory is correct. And with CERN finally saying they have enough evidence to confirm the existence of the Higgs-Boson particle, it won't take very long from this point.

Is this how you think science works? Because Einstein's relativity one once a hypothesis too ( just as every other theory) and was proven later on then that means string theory will be proven correct too? That doesn't make sense.

Einstein's theory is not incorrect, just as Newton's classical mechanics is not incorrect as well. Every theory is "correct" to an extent. The newer theories just make the predictions more accurate. The older theores were correct to the extent they could be applied.

Not saying string theory is bs. It is just extremely hard to prove it. I guess we'll see.

Also aren't loop quantum gravity and string theory competing theories? They can't both be right, now can they?
 

silverhaze06

EDF Hero
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
334
Location
Up ur butt.
Is this how you think science works? Because Einstein's relativity one once a hypothesis too ( just as every other theory) and was proven later on then that means string theory will be proven correct too? That doesn't make sense.

Einstein's theory is not incorrect, just as Newton's classical mechanics is not incorrect as well. Every theory is "correct" to an extent. The newer theories just make the predictions more accurate. The older theores were correct to the extent they could be applied.

Not saying string theory is bs. It is just extremely hard to prove it. I guess we'll see.

Also aren't loop quantum gravity and string theory competing theories? They can't both be right, now can they?
No, ST & QG compliment each other quite nicely. And Newtonian gravity is quite incorrect. When you apply Newtonian gravity to the orbit of the planet Mercury, it cannot accurately predict its behavior. When you apply Einstein's theory though, it works perfectly. But when you apply GR to a blackhole, it breaks down completely. The evidence for ST and QG is there. That's the whole reason they built the LHC at CERN in the first place. Because that is the only thing available to us now that is capable of testing those theories since it is impossible to go inside a black hole, test things, and come back out. The LHC has already collected enough evidence to confirm the existence of the Higgs just within the past couple of months. So after the slow, slow, process of peer reviewing is done, it will be accepted as fact, just as Newton's and Einstein's theories were.
 

silverhaze06

EDF Hero
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
334
Location
Up ur butt.
Is this how you think science works? Because Einstein's relativity one once a hypothesis too ( just as every other theory) and was proven later on then that means string theory will be proven correct too? That doesn't make sense.

Einstein's theory is not incorrect, just as Newton's classical mechanics is not incorrect as well. Every theory is "correct" to an extent. The newer theories just make the predictions more accurate. The older theores were correct to the extent they could be applied.

Not saying string theory is bs. It is just extremely hard to prove it. I guess we'll see.

Also aren't loop quantum gravity and string theory competing theories? They can't both be right, now can they?


And before Newton, people thought God created the universe only 6,000 years ago and accepted that as fact as well. But it doesn't mean it is true. As we now have plenty of evidence to the contrary. It's called, progress mother fucker. Do you speak it?
 

Cock

Doctor
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
3,576
Location
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Website
aaa.AAAAA.aaa
And before Newton, people thought God created the universe only 6,000 years ago and accepted that as fact as well. But it doesn't mean it is true. As we now have plenty of evidence to the contrary. It's called, progress mother fucker. Do you speak it?
Oh boy. There is nothing "wrong" with Newton's gravity man. It was just incomplete, because people at the time didn't know anything about relativistic effects, spacetime and so on. So for it's time it was as accurate as the man could get it.

Now to your god thing. The difference is that this idea about a god creating everything is not a model, which is capable of making predictions. It is basically useless. Newton's gravity however DOES make accurate predictions within the scope that it can be used. Newton's formulas are still used today:

Wikipedia said:
Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications involving sufficiently small masses, speeds and energies.
 

uberfukken

Custom title
Joined
Nov 22, 2011
Messages
23,407
New paper released on the 22nd from none other than Stephen Hawking suggests everything we know about black holes is complete and utter bullshit.

Dumbified news release

Actual shit

About fucking time someone says it.

More specifically, everything we know about the event horizon is fucked. According to his new theory, nothing actually gets sucked into a black hole, just scrambled and stuck in the boundaries.
 
Top