For distant observer there will be always a last photon coming out the forming black hole, thus the hole becomes black in finite time that depends on the mass of the object. Notice also that concept of event horizon involve is a global one, in practice one uses the concept of apparent horizon.

"all the points to the future of the event horizon are inside it"

That's a very nice, concise way of stating it. The external observer has no horizons. Only if he becomes an infalling observer will he acquire a horizon. Everything inside and outside the event horizon can be to his future since he can fall in. But once he does, everything outside the horizon cannot be to his future.

First of all time cannot dilate. Scientific myths are so deep-rooted that there seems no possibility to redirect science to the proper course. I have referred to my article on Researchgate.net number of times, on number occasions. Scientists should properly understand notion of time in order to stop propagate nonsense.

http://www.eioba.com/a/33e7/why-time-cannot-dilate

Colleagues.

In my opinion before discussing the event horizon for different observers, and we must understand what a black hole.

For the equations that there are not able to describe how he and inside. since it is not public domain a theory of quantum gravity would be the basis of behavior of a black hole and also the general theory of relativity has no power to it, it considers a singularity of infinite density, infinite time and infinite dimension small. And besides the problem with the equations of physics to treat the singularity is the fact that the definition of own time and that is not dominated by the actual physical, nor is there a consensus and if it continuous or quantized!

Love this question. Don't have an answer but it sounds plausible. More consideration must be given to cosmological size. It's not just really big. It's really real. Moving just like us.

Jorge

We know quite well what is a black hole. It is described by the Schwarzschild metric, and its astrophysical effects are obvious in thousands of galaxies.

Dear Dr. Roos

The Schwarzschild solution and based on Einstein's equations , which do not give answers to demonstrating how the problem so that it is beyond the ability of solving them . If we see deeper into the subject , which the density of a black hole ? What happens to the material that falls on it ? and a Einstein-Rosen bridge that connects two points of this universe or another? or not a bridge is ? know and a lot of unanswered questions and the one who is perceived and by gravitational deviations have something that affects the neighbors by force of gravity!

The only thing that calculates and starting point that the photon has no way to escape the gallows of gravity called the event horizon . passing from this point forward so the quantum gravity can say !

 I recently finished gathering quantum mechanics and relativity into a theory and I'm ready to publish , but still do not have a perfect understanding of how a black hole inside.

 so it actually already analyzed and Einstein - Rosen bridge , however between this universe and a parallel antimatter that the set of equations that demonstrates development .

Donald,

Are you suggesting that the material between the Earth & the Sun also produces remote lenses in proportion to gravitational effects?

Dear Donald.

Einstein made ​​some small delizes of analysis but the theory that he did this strictly correct within the limits that proposes to address. Einstein knew it would be necessary a theory to solve the fullest paradodox of relativity and quantum mechanics.

This recent article that I add will take any questions about the time dilation as a function of gravity. But not solve what is inside a black hole!

Good question! I've wondered the same thing myself.

I read a good explanation of this a couple of years ago in Leonard Susskind's "The Black Hole War", which goes into these kinds of ideas in detail.

The gist of it is that matter never falls past the event horizon from an outsider's point of view, but rather it *merges with the entire event horizon*. From the matter's point of view, nothing special happens when it falls past the event horizon. Susskind explained this as a kind of "duality", similar in concept to the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics.

Here's a link to the book. I highly recommend it!

http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Hole-War-Mechanics/dp/0316016411

Wow, some of these answers are absolutely ridiculous! Why not just look at a good book on General Relativity, like Wald or Misner, Thorne, Wheeler? The answer is obviously that black holes can form! No sane individual would seriously think that EVERYONE who seriously investigates these issues is fundamentally wrong and that some crackpot on the fringes has the right answer. Are all serious scientist idiots and liars while all the crackpots are supposedly misunderstood geniuses? (Of course, only some self-elected set of crackpots could be "geniuses", since they also disagree with each other as well as the mainstream.)

As to the superficially plausible suggestion that black hole formation is outside the domain of validity of general relativity due to curvature singularities, this is completely invalid. The event horizon forms in a region of low curvature where general relativity is known to work. Also, although it is true that an outside observer never gets to see the precise moment when the black hole forms, a detailed calculation reveals that collapsing matter approaches a schwarzchild-like solution exponentially fast, so that light shining near the horizon dims exponentially. Once the redshift is so great that a planck energy photon is shifted to a photon with wavelength of some large scale (eg, the Hubble scale) then we have a black hole for all intents and purposes. Finally, the formation of a black hole does not require new matter coming in from outside, the black hole horizon can form outside the matter distribution in entirely empty space.

Anyway, anyone who is seriously interested should just go read reliable sources and not believe anything on this site.

Donald,

Then do you also suggest that the field equations coincidentally predict the curvature of light - only at close proximity to the Sun - by the Solar wind (or is it the atmosphere of the Sun?) and by whatever baryonic material surrounds remote lensing objects? Coincidentally proportional to these objects' estimated mass?

William,

I'm not sure whether to vote your answer up or down - which, by the way, is stated to indicate an 'interesting' answer (or question). I generally agree with your specific points, but I think your criticism, while reasonably accurate here, is overly harsh.

As I understand, voting 'up' an interesting answer is intended to encourage open discussion of thought-provoking subjects. If this site is restricted to use only as a factual reference, I'll continue to rely more on Wikipedia as a more correct and convenient initial source.

The existence or otherwise of black holes and the supposed event horizon depends upon solutions to Einstein's field equations. In both their derivation and solution, the mathematics used is complex and not well understood. Mathematics seems to have taken over physics and mathematical answers are regarded as accurate, even if there is no supporting physics. In a recent publication:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=35823

I have derived a space-time geometry equation for space outside matter, based upon the known physical principle of conservation of energy. The mathematics is easy to follow, using nothing more complex that high school and early university mathematics. This metric matches every observation that supports general relativity. I point out that observations have to be improved by a factor of some 10,000 times in accuracy before the two metrics can be distinguished. I predict that when that happens, my conservation of energy metric will be shown to be correct. In that metric I show that the singularity is at the origin, not the Schwarzschild radius. Until such time as measurements are made that distinguish between (1-alpha/r) and exp-alpha/r, there is no experimental support for the existence of black holes, only for the existence of massive objects that theoreticians name black holes. It is time for physicists to determine whether observation is important, or whether theory is dominant. Mainstream journal reviewers reject papers that match experiment if they don't agree with an established theory.

There is no experimental evidence or physical principle for the existence black holes. They are a mathematical concept based upon Einstein's field equations. The so-called detected black holes are massive objects that theoreticians call black holes. As my paper shows, the so-called Schwarzschild metric is the first approximation to the exact solution derived from the known physical principle of conservation of energy.

Going back to the original question, seeking a physical explanation for a non existent effect becomes meaningless. The Schwarzschild radius should be treated just like any other distance from the origin and has no special properties.

William Cottrell, you may suffer from an equal and opposite malady from the perspective you criticize. Were all the mainstream physicists in 1905 "idiots and liars" when a crackpot working in a patent office came along with a "ridiculous" idea?

A ridiculous idea can be calmly, gently, and easily refuted. But with your stridence and adulation of the present establishment, you may miss the next turn of the table.

James Dwyer,

Wikipedia gives a simplified view of science, and it is far from up-to-date. The people participating in this discussion should go to arXiv.org and feed a catch word. Most of the articles on research that can be found in this way are too difficult for the uneducated reader, but there are lots of readable review articles, too. I don't understand why so many participants on Research Gate insist on advertising their own ill-founded ideas when reliable knowledge is so easily available.

Indeed, black holes cannot form to completion relative to any frame outside the notional event horizon because, as you say, the relative time dilation diverges. So, no astronomer will ever see a true black hole. Of course gravitational collapse reaches pretty close to the notional event horizon in a short time and one may consider that compact object as a 'black hole' for 'all practical purposes', like X-ray emission from accretion, redshift of light etc. However, most conceptual problems usually raised, like the information information loss paradox are irrelevant and meaningless in rigorous examination because the event horizon never forms relative to observers (us) who think of matter as holding information.

@C.S.Unnikrishnan, thanks, your answer is the most direct to my question and the one that seems most reasonable to me. Although maybe I just like it because it confirms my suspicion? Still, I see that you have the background to make a very informed comment. Thanks again.

Thanks to everyone who posted, and feel free to continue to do so, something interesting may crop up.

@Robert Low, I'm not sure what's confusing about the standard term "reference frame." I'm referring to an object well outside the event horizon. Let me try to formulate what I mean by "really exist." First of all, I'm referring to the remote observer's reference frame only. The event horizon seems to exist in other frames. It is possible to set up a one to one correspondence between all time points in the remote observer's frame and the time points of the proper frame of an in-falling object, prior to its encountering and crossing the horizon. So all these points really exist in both frames. However, points in the proper frame at or beneath the horizon have no correspondence in the remote observer's frame so they do not exist there, "really" or otherwise. In fact, at least in theory, I believe it is possible always to remove the object from near the event horizon in the remote observer's frame. It may be squashed, but for a sufficiently large black hole it should be OK.

@Vivian Robinson, thanks for the link to your paper. I have a theoretical paper in the same journal that gives a qualitatively similar result. http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27250 . I think you have an awkward mistake in terminology, though. In GR the singularity is at R=0, not at the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild is only the point of no return. In a remote frame it appears to be a radius of infinite time dilation, though this is a bit misleading because black hole can be moved about in space as easily as any other object of the same mass (e.g. by galactic gravitational fields, or very strong EM fields). The in-fallen object is only frozen with respect to its internal motions and motion relative to the black hole. It can otherwise be moved about. My question was in regard to what happens in GR, not alternate theories. See next post. Thanks!

@all others, I was asking about GR only, I'm familiar with other theories, but thanks for your posts. Also I see I didn't make clear that the reason for the question is that I've read conflicting accounts from expert GR authors of in-falling objects, as to whether in the frame of a remote observer the falling object ever crosses the horizon. Here I'm observing that the dilemma can be stated in such a way that it affects the formation of the horizon in the remote frame.

So far we have heard a truly focused reply only from the side of non-formation in the remote observer's frame. Is there a thoughtful rebuttal from someone really knowledgable in GR, or is that the end of it? Thanks again to all!

@Shaun Inglis, yes that's the book I also read 6 years ago that indeed prompts this question. I was fishing to see if there was a misunderstanding on my part, or a rebuttal from a different point of view within GR. Thanks.

@Sanjay, I missed your answer at first because it was one of the first one's and was hidden. So we have essentially two votes for the proposition if I understand you correctly. Thanks!

@Andrzej Lechowski, well your comment is useful in forcing everyone to think and speak clearly, but I think it is either a problem with English semantics or other mis-understanding. It's true that the popular literature on GR could lead one to view time as a tangible thing like space that can shrink or expand. But if we look closely at physical experiments we see that indeed time never changes as long as the clock you are using is local (nearby). If we measure the ticking of one clock by another, however, and drop the first clock down a mine shaff, it's motion slows down. It is possible to describe all physical phenomena as being relative to the motion and period of one physical clock or another and avoid the use of the word time or even the abstract concept of time. That is my view, though I'm sure this post will provoke wild tirades. ; )

@Donald Hamilton, it might surprise you to know that initially Einstein agreed with you, and published his first theory of gravity in 1913, which held that there was no gravitational attraction to photons. However, since he was using time dilation to produce gravity, and since time dilation slows all motion, there was a refraction effect due to one part of the wavefront slowing as viewed from a remote reference frame. This he predicted an incorrect amount of bending. Luckily for Albert, the next expedition failed to produce any data, and by 1915 he had added the curvature of space, doubling the bending. Curved space, of course, is independent of the mass of objects. It has always seemed to me that the double bending violates equivalence, but relativists react like terrorists whose religion has been attacked when asked this question, so I've not been willing to post it here. :D

@Paul Camp, I see that I missed your answer also as it was one of the early hidden ones. Gee I didn't expect so much response! OK, now 3 votes for the proposition.

@Robert: yes, due to strong dilation of proper times of particles in a spherical collapsing object all processe fully freeze, including the process of collapse, w.r.t. world time. Freezing starts at the centre and propagates up to the surface and the latter freezes beyond the gravitational radius. I proposed to name the such object as frozar (from "frozen star").

Details see in my papers

http://theor-phys.org/tpac/4100-024/ , http://theor-phys.org/tpac/4200-026/

and in my discussion with 't Hooft

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=197654004&gid=3091009&commentID=110918635&trk=view_disc&ut=1TK0SywbV34lA1

In GR, there is no such notion as "the observers reference frame". There are only systems of coordinates. So the original question is ill-posed.

@Zahid, thanks for your post and all the interesting links.

@Ilja, there are always observers who can make measurements, call them what you will.

@Robert Low, I would have to refresh my memory on Rindler horizons. I think "really exist" is a term that needs defining, but I chose it knowning that and perhaps some ideas will be posted. Thank you for prodding me to produce the following discussion:

@ALL

RELATING THE QUESTION TO THE DIVERGENT REALITIES OF ALLEN ALLEN

One item that stimulated the question was Allen Allen's paper on The Weatherman (falling into a black hole ... also inspired by Susskind's book) http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.76 (If you don't have a subscription to PE I'm sure Allen will send it to you). Basically, the two observers, one falling and one not, report different and conflicting versions of reality. Allen's solution is that reality is divergent (which reminds me of quantum measurement and the many worlds theory). I disagree that the logic forces this conclusion, but the alternative is to simply declare a contradiction and an error in the theory that leads to it (GR), and people don't seem ready to give up on GR yet. In other words, it's more serious than the superposition problem in QM, which is technically not a paradox.

So in the outside universe, loosely speaking, the in-faller (in Allen's paper the Weatherman) is destroyed at the horizon by tremendous temperatures there, and is smeared out into its entropic content. But if the black hole is large the in-faller notices no problems at the horizon, only later at the singularity. Given this contradiction of facts, I think I'm justified in wondering if the in-faller exists in the remote observer's universe, anywhere, because in that frame (or whatever you want to call it) the in-faller was destroyed by the horizon. That the in-faller will not agree can never be debated between the two.

@Low - from the Susskind paper you mentioned, this seems to support Allen's interpretation:

"As long as we do not postulate [super observers outside the universe], we see no logical contradiction in assuming that a distant observer sees all infalling information returned in Hawking-like radiation, and that the infalling observer experiences nothing unusual before or during horizon crossing. Only when we try to give a combined description, with a standard quantum theory valid for both observers, do we encounter trouble. Of course, it may be argued that a quantum field theoretic description of gravity dictates just such a description, whether we like it or not. If this is the case, such a quantum field theory is inconsistent with our postulates; therefore, one or the other is incorrect." (Susskind 1993 - http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9306069v2.pdf )

@Robert Shuler

I definitely don't agree with your argumentation. If your watch shows that 1 minute lasts 70 seconds, that means your watch is not reliable. BTW relativity is a false theory. As far as space is concerned, it neither expands nor shrinks or undergoes deflection (one of number of scientific myths).

P.S.

I'd like to notice that cannot access previous comments hence cannot reply those if there were such directed to me.

Andrzej,

See "NIST Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity at a Personal Scale," http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm.

Are you aware that the hidden early comments can be shown by clicking on the 'Show previous comments' bar following the question posting and the "Popular Answers" near the top of page? It's still working for me...

There is no such thing as a black hole so the issue of 'time dilation' has no relevance. To begin with:

All alleged black hole universes:

(1) are spatially infinite

(2) are eternal

(3) contain only one mass

(4) are not expanding

(5) are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.

The alleged big bang universes:

(1) are spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two cases)

(2) are of finite age

(3) contain radiation and many masses, including multiple black holes (some of which are primordial)

(4) are expanding

(5) are not asymptotically anything.

The defining features of the black hole universe clearly contradict the defining features of the big bang universes. Consequently the black hole universes and the big bang universes are mutually exclusive – they cannot coexist. No mathematics is required to see this because it is a matter of elementary logic.

@Robert Low, thanks for re-statement of the paradox and other comments.

@James Dwyer, thanks for the very succinct answer to Andrzej's post. You have to have two clocks at slightly different places, as of course time dilation is not experienced locally.

@Stephen Crothers and all others who have or may respond that GR is not a correct theory. The question is asked in the context of GR. I have my own pet theory, too, but the question is not valid in a theory where BH's do not exist.

I want to illuminate whether or not there is a paradox that forces a divergent reality (or an end to the theory) for GR. If so, I think it would be interesting to note that the event horizons described in so much popular physics literature haven't formed yet as far as we are concerned. If they haven't formed yet and won't for us and we cannot run any experiment that reports back about them, do they make any difference and can we even consider them real? To quote Spock: "A difference which makes no difference is no difference."

It seems to me the answers are roughly equally divided into three camps.

1 - Time dilation (without any paradox) is sufficient to conclude horizon does not form for a remote observer

2 - Somehow the horizon is evident to the remote observer and the BH has formed (though I'm summarizing answers I do not understand and that don't make sense to me so far)

3 - GR is not a correct theory

And then there are one or two people (at least myself and Low that I recall without looking back) that have trailed into discussing possible paradoxes and whether they have a bearing or make the proposition more concrete.

Matts Roos,

Two days ago, William Cottrell posted a comment beginning:

"Wow, some of these answers are absolutely ridiculous! Why not just look at a good book on General Relativity, like Wald or Misner, Thorne, Wheeler? The answer is obviously that black holes can form!..."

In reply, I stated (in part):

"If this site is restricted to use only as a factual reference, I'll continue to rely more on Wikipedia as a more correct and convenient initial source."

Wikipedia also includes references to facilitate further research - IMO it's a useful and convenient initial source of information. Conversely, arXiv and even research journals allow contradictory, conflicting information - as they are primarily intended for the reporting of new research results. Obviously they are not definitive sources of only factual information.

I generally agree with William's assessment, but I do not think that this site can or should be only for factual reference, and that postings should generally not be ridiculed, as that discourages open discussions. For example, this question posting is obviously not intended to find its definitive answer, as none may currently exist, but rather to promote discussion of an interesting idea.

IMO, the main weakness of these discussions is that there are too many posts making definitive declarations without sufficient explanation or referential support. If this site is restricted to one where only 'novice students' can ask questions that 'expert teachers' answer by proclamation, I think it would not then function as a forum for open discussion of interesting questions. In that case, I think this question posting should be disallowed - but I do not think that is the case.

Dear Robert Schuler,

In my post I have not addressed the issue of whether or not GR is valid. I have simply presented facts that demonstrate that the defining properties of the black hole and the big bang are contradictory and so they cannot coexist. This means that either the black hole is false or the big bang is false or that both are false. Given the nature of the claims for black hole big bang universes made by proponents thereof, only the last option is tenable, especially bearing in mind that since GR is nonlinear, the Principle of Superposition does not hold. The defining features of all black hole universes and big bang universes invalid them even within the context of GR from which they are alleged.

See http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/115 - its subheading states:

"New theoretical work rekindles the question on whether black holes have an interior: Would a firewall destroy any observer crossing a black hole horizon?"

It also offers a free link to last week's letter by Donald Marolf and Joseph Polchinski published in Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 171301 (2013): http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.171301.

I offer a simple scenario very loosely based on the firewall conjecture.

Perhaps the collapse of a sufficiently massive stellar core, for example, produces essentially the same process that produces neutron stars but continues to collapse so that interior neutrons are effectively accelerated - nearly to the speed of light. Since massive particles cannot reach the speed of light, these bound neutrons disintegrate into their constituent quarks & gluons, thereby releasing their majority bound mass-energy.

The relatively tiny rest mass of the quarks & gluons causes them to be forced out of the collapsing core, as additional neutrons continue to be increasingly accelerated towards the center. The protons' majority bound mass-energy is retained at the center, incrementally curving spacetime. This empty central curved spacetime, directed towards an abstract singularity, is the forming event horizon.

Matter never quite crosses the growing event horizon or experiences superluminal velocities or infinite dilation of spacetime. There is no matter within the black hole - only mass-energy in the form of curved spacetime. Within the growing event horizon is an empty sphere of gravitationally curved spacetime. Similarly, an existing event horizon that accretes additional mass-energy likewise disintegrates matter before it crosses the event horizon. Residual fundamental particles are ejected via relativistic polar jets.

In this scenario there seems to be nothing to prevent the creation of the event horizon... I think that general relativity remains valid for describing the cosmological properties of the black hole...

Dear Professor Arno Gorgels

Does Cantor's Universe support to the standard model.

Stephen and others,

You stated that "the defining properties of the black hole and the big bang are contradictory and so they cannot coexist". The Big Bang is not understood, it is in contradiction with QM and we cannot observe it. All we know is that there has been a cosmic inflation, there are measurable traces of it.

On the other hand, we can observe black holes from outside their horizon, so it is a meaningful concept. What goes on inside the black holes we can only speculate about, and in particular we have no idea about the physics of the singularity at the center, probably that is also in contradiction with QM.

The Schwarzschild metric satisfies GR, but all speculations about the in-falling observer are mere mathematical consequences of the Schwarzschild metric, and we have no idea about what he would experience. I don't see what is gained by declaring black holes as non-existent - not clarity anyway.

A

@James Dwyer

How can you take it seriously, since the first sentence starts with bollocks. Quote: "BOULDER, Colo. – Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket."

T i m e d o e s n o t p a s s ((!))

Some scientists live like in a reserve. They've got no idea what's going on around them. The theory of relativity is assembled with absurdities. As an antidote I suggest for the good start the following websites:

http://nasa_ktp.republika.pl/Requiem_uk.html

http://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

http://www.steady-state-universe.net/#Einsteins_Idiots

http://tesla2.blogspot.co.uk

http://nasa_ktp.republika.pl/Ruch_peryhelium_uk.html

The followers of religion called Relativity will never give a plausible theory of everything. Physics requires a radical change.

P.S.

Yes, I knew about method of gaining hidden comments, but link was then inactive.

Andrzej,

The NIST announcement was obviously intended for a general audience.

It references C.W. Chou, D.B. Hume, T. Rosenband and D.J. Wineland. Optical Clocks and Relativity. Science. Sept. 24, 2010, which can be freely accessed at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47369963_Optical_clocks_and_relativity

Article Optical Clocks and Relativity

Thanks to James Dwyer for two valuable links, one showing even the most conservative establishment journal publishes an article proposing a firewall that prevents anything from falling into a black hole, the other showing experimental observations of altered clock rates from 10 m/s differences in velocity and 1 meter differences in elevation. I suggest those interested in discussing time dilation or relativity more generally ask a question and start a thread. That's how I got going here, spinning off a side topic from a thread I was commenting on. Thanks to everyone who showed interest. I can't believe how many comments I stirred up!

The gist I get from the discussion is that anything coming out of a BH such as Hawking radiation is not coming from an event horizon, since it cannot have existed in the past time path of such radiation. That's actually not a very novel conclusion, since if the horizon were there then obviously nothing comes out of it. But what's new to me is that the complimentary particles to the Hawking radiation are not so much getting trapped behind a horizon as just closer to where it will or would form if it did not evaporate first, which it does. So quantum mechanics prevents the formation of any singularities and we don't really need to know about physics there. ; )

Dear Matts Roos,

Asserting that the “Big Bang is not understood” does not thereby impart any meaning to the standard claim that the Universe came into existence from some Big Bang. One cannot observe black holes in any way on the mere belief that they exist. What is claimed to be observations of black holes and cosmic inflation is just wishful thinking masquerading as science. Images of black holes so often accompanying wild claims about them are cartoons and computer generated fictions. Contrary to what you have said, what goes on inside the alleged black hole is not just speculated, but given definite properties in the literature and textbooks. For instance, it is claimed that black holes have infinitely dense singularities. There are only two types of black hole singularity (1) an infinitely dense point-mass; (2) an infinitely dense circumference of a circle; not a circle mind you, only the circumference of a circle. It is also routinely asserted that below the ‘event horizon’ spacelike and timelike quantities in related metrics exchange their roles. Also one can easily generate any number of metrics that satisfy Einstein’s alleged field equations, such as Ric = 0, but which are totally devoid of physical meaning. The Schwarzschild metric is such a metric, despite the astrophysical scientists’ dependence upon it. Satisfying Einstein’s field equations is necessary but insufficient. That all the alleged Black Hole universes contradict all the alleged Big Bang universes is very telling. Superposing black hole universes with big bang universes violates the mathematical structure of General Relativity (which is nonlinear) and the very definitions of all alleged black hole universes and big bang universes.

I have already adduced the generic defining properties of all alleged black hole universes and all alleged big bang universes. They are mutually exclusive. Let X be some alleged black hole universe and Y be some alleged big bang universe. Then X + Y is not a universe because GR is nonlinear and hence the Principle of Superposition is invalid. Indeed, X and Y pertain to entirely different sets of Einstein field equations and so they have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

Dear Robert Low,

It is simply not true that black hole universes are not arbitrarily superposed upon big bang universes to manufacture a black hole big bang universe. They are superposed all the time. There are 4 types of alleged black hole universes and 3 types of big bang universes. None are compatible on first principles. Let X be some alleged black hole universe and Y be some alleged big bang universe. Then X + Y is not a universe because GR is nonlinear and hence the Principle of Superposition is invalid. Indeed, X and Y pertain to entirely different sets of Einstein field equations and so they have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

One cannot use a black hole solution to approximate anything because all alleged black hole universes are exact solutions for one-mass universes. All alleged big bang universes are exact solutions too, so they approximate nothing. None can be superposed upon one another or upon themselves. But they are arbitrarily superposed in order to generate the Standard Model. All alleged black hole universes are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved, and are eternal (static or ‘stationary’). There is no boundary to asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved, and so there is no approximation anywhere. They are either asymptotic or not asymptotic. If not asymptotic then they are not black hole solutions, if they are not eternal they are not black hole solutions, if they are not spatially infinite they are not black hole solutions, if they contain more than one mass they are not black hole solutions, if they are expanding (non-static) they are not black hole solutions. All alleged Big Bang universes are expanding (non-static), are of finite age, contain many masses and radiation,and are not asymptotically anything, and their alleged respective constant curvatures (-1, 0, +1) are not shared by any alleged black hole universe. Alleged ‘numerical methods’ cannot circumvent the very definitions of black hole universes and big bang universes. Furthermore, there are no known sets of Einstein field equations for 2 or more masses and hence no solutions thereto, and no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for 2 or more masses. GR cannot even account for the simple experimental fact that two stationary suspended bodies approach one another upon release. Multiple masses are conjured by a false analogy with Newton’s theory (which does not predict black holes since the theoretical Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the defining features of the alleged black holes).

Let’s consider the so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ It is a solution for Ric = 0. However, there are no material sources present, despite Einstein’s claim that Ric = 0 contains a material source. Einstein’s field equations couple his alleged gravitational field to its sources because matter is still the source of his gravitational ‘fields’. Einstein calls ‘matter’ the combination of mass and electromagnetic radiation. First Einstein removes all material sources by setting (energy-momentum tensor = 0). Then he immediately reinstates a massive source with the deceptive words that Ric = 0 describes his gravitational field “outside” a body such as a star, because he must still have a material source. This is a contradiction. If a material source is present it must be coupled to his gravitational field via his field equations. The contradiction is made even clearer by de Sitter’s empty static universe. In the case of de Sitter’s empty world, energy-momentum tensor = 0. de Sitter’s empty world is empty because energy-momentum tensor = 0. Thus, energy-momentum tensor = 0 allegedly both includes material sources (Ric = 0) and precludes material sources (de Sitter’s empty universe). This is impossible. The fact is (energy-momentum tensor = 0) = (no material sources) = (no gravitational field). But the black hole was first spawned from the ‘Schwarzschild solution’ for Ric = 0. There is thus no black hole at all in the ‘Schwarzschild solution’.

@ Donald Hamilton . . . FYI, I personally am using the word time dilation to mean a change in clocks due to mass changes as you stated. I realize this is not the conventional linguistics of GR where in the proper frame the proper mass does not appear to change because it is measured with proper clocks that changed relative to some other observer. But I have demonstrated in a paper that cross-frame mass changes accompany any theory containing time dilation (as the term is commonly used), not just limited to GR. See http://mc1soft.com/papers/2010_Laws_2col.pdf section VIII, published Dec. 2011 at http://physicsessays.org/

Arno,

"... GRT has been falsified by the discovery of the phenomenon called dark matter."

GRT was not used to infer the existence of dark matter - especially in spiral galaxies.

Please see Carrick and Cooperstock, (2012), "General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies," http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10509-011-0854-z http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3224

IMO, it was primarily improperly applied Keplerian dynamics that was used to infer the existence of galactic dark matter. If there was no perceived requirement for rotational velocities of disk objects to diminish as a function of radial distance in vast, self-gravitating compound disk structures, there would be little need for the compensatory mass of dark matter halos...

@ Robert Low,

You have missed the most important fact. Energy-momentum tensor = 0 is alleged to both include and to preclude material sources. This is impossible! No matter = no material sources = no gravitational field. The BH was spawned from the 'Schwarzschild solution' for Ric = 0 (energy-momentum tensor = 0). The contradiction cannot be surmounted. There is no BH.

@Joseph Uphoff: Your argument is unsound. Static universes are not non-static universes, spatially infinite universes are not spatially finite universes, asymptotically flat and asymptoticallycurved universes are not not asymptotically anything universes, empty universes are not one-mass or multi-mass universes, universes of constant curvature are not universes of varying curvature. ‘Entrophy’ has nothing to do with it. Contradictions remain contradictions. Energy-momentum tensor = 0 allegedly both includes and precludes matter. That is impossible. Ric = 0 contains no matter for the very same reason that de Sitter’s empty static universe is empty.

The other fact that is that GR violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum and is therefore in conflict with experiment on a very deep level.

Most of the above points date back to Wheeler’s group - Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" is an accessible discussion of their early thinking.

They decided that the 'time horizon' is not a real singularity, on the basis of the Finkelstein-Eddington metric. Thorne explains: As a collapsing star contracts to the critical radius, shrinkage slows to a crawl, due to time dilation. An observer riding on the surface goes through in an hour.

Of course this is paradoxical - there is no 1-1 mapping between the supposed rider's time and the external observer's time (beyond infinity!). A mathematical trick that removes such a singularity is trickery. Harrison, Thorne, Wakano and Wheeler covered it up with words, which became a mantra (reinforced by Thorne by "unequivocal" and "no alternative"). Thorne’s 1967 analogy of a folding rubber membrane populated by ants trying to escape pre pinch-off again does not face the singularity and the absence of a 1-1 mapping of a piece of matter-containing space that disconnects from the universe.

Early in his book, Kip Thorne praises Wheeler as seeking out places in theoretical physics where paradoxes abound - from resolving a paradox comes deep understanding. But the event-horizon paradox was glossed over with words; group-think then and since has prevented its resolution.

Max,

Very good perspective, but didn't all the above presume that matter must pass through the event horizon in order for the BH to accrete mass-energy? The firewall conjecture seems to eliminate this requirement, thus removing the effect of time dilation on the accretion of equivalent mass-energy...

As Andreas Karch says http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/115 , "Firewalls are in sharp contradiction to expectations from classical gravity" (GR). Moreover, you can’t escape GR by dividing matter-energy into mass-particles and energy. Birkoff’s theorem requires that mass-energy is conserved within co-moving surfaces in spherical symmetry, so the contracting event horizon cannot accrete matter or lose quarks etc. as James speculates above. Avoiding Birkoff via non-sphericity is a cop-out. Birkoff does not stop accretion - faster inward-falling mass-particles can still reach and penetrate the Schwarzschild radius in finite time.

Max,

You seem to have misunderstood me. My speculation involved only an expanding event horizon accreting mass-energy released by the disintegration of bound particles that never entered the event horizon. This scenario is somewhat similar to Thorne's empty black hole conjecture, except that bound matter disintegrates before reaching the event horizon, rather than being completely converted into gravitationally curved spacetime as it is somehow 'crushed' within a central singularity.

In my opinion, the processes that resolve the disposition of dimensional matter should be quantum in nature, rather than evoking unphysical infinities or wormholes... The fundamental particles and EM emissions expelled via relativistic polar jets suggest to me that quantum/nuclear processes are occurring very near the event horizon of forming or accreting black holes. Obviously, the ejected material cannot have ever entered the event horizon.

Hi Max & James, your debate is very instructive and interesting, thanks for posting here.

I am thinking that, presuming GR equations are correct and an infinite time dilation horizon is approached (even if never quite realized) at positive radius, then firewall or no, matter-energy and therefore gravitational stress energy could accumulate differentially outside that radius. If the almost-black-hole were to remain intact and lose no matter-energy, then beyond the end of our time everything should in-fall, but if in our time the BH evaporates, then none of what comes out would have ever been behind a fully formed horizon, because that never happened in our time. Make sense?

Because time dilation is relative, the clock of a body gravitating into a black hole is always at "proper time" in its own frame of reference. The event horizon too is relative; a body that has penetrated the horizon from our perspective would be receiving radiation from its elevation in "the hole" and above.

1. Low mass fundamental particles (residue from disintegrated compound particles such as electrons, protons and even neutrons) at the event horizon boundary may escape the gravitation of the black hole by being accelerated to subluminal velocities (by EM fields and charged particle flows).

2. High energy EMR emissions observed being deflected by accretion disks suggest that high energy quantum/nuclear processes are occurring very near the event horizon.

3. Very high energy EMR emissions and particles observed being ejected at superluminal velocities via relativistic jets provides compelling evidence that at least some highly energized material avoids falling through the event horizon. Any that avoids falling in would seem to violate some established interpretations of GR principals.

Even from a cosmological perspective, it must be considered that the black hole is 'losing' mass energy expelled via relativistic jets - as an inherent aspect of the accretion process as it *gains* enormous amounts of mass-energy released from disintegrated compound particles. In this view, the 'lost' mass-energy was never actually a component of the black hole proper. This may conflict with some interpretations of local energy conservation, but the evidence provided by relativistic jets may be indisputable.

@James Arnold: "Because time dilation is relative... The event horizon too is relative..."

In relativity theory there are two kind of time dilations. Only the first one - time dilation between inertial frames is relative, while the second one - time dilation at acceleration, as well as gravitational time dilation, is absolute (a result of such absolutiness is well known twin paradox which has clear solution).

I think Zahid & James (Arnold) may be stumbling over some word semantics. Zahid, you seem to be contrasting the relative motion time dilation which is reversed in the other frame, with gravitational and acceleration time dilation to which both observers agree. I think James only means that the 2nd version which Zahid calls absolute is actually only detectable relative to some other observer. It is not detectable locally. Therefore it meets the classical definition of relative, in the sense that Mach and many others used the term before Einstein. In fact Galilean mechanics are usually described as relative. Newton confused everyone for a while with a diatribe in Principia about absolute time, but only perhaps one of the contributors to this thread would take that position.

Resistence to gravitation at a surface is absolute, accelerating out of a gravitational field is absolute, but falling into a gravitational field is relative. An accelerometer will register the difference.

@Robert Shuler: "...then beyond the end of our time (!??) everything should in-fall, but if in our time the BH evaporates, then none of what comes out would have ever been behind a fully formed horizon, because that never happened in our time"

We are dealing with a preferable "world time" of our Universe as a proper time of an observer (in a weak grav. field) resting w.r.t. relic flow, i.e. for which CMB is isotropic. In GR a real collapse in terms of this world time can not be realised. All other "proper times" in collapsing objects are slowed down absolutely w.r.t. to it, moreover, are constrainer so, than a moment of proper time when a tourist would cross a grav. radius, will not come in our Universe.

Robert, time dilation that "is not detectable locally", i.e., by the clock of the in-falling body itself, is not detectable because there is no time dilation affecting the body.

Zahid, "'proper times' in collapsing objects are slowed down absolutely" I believe you are referring to various bodies falling into a gravitational field. To fall into a gravitational field, no matter how intense, is to follow a geodesic, i.e., to move uniformly in one's own reference frame. A clock moving uniformly does not dilate absolutely.

Following up: Zahid, your idea of "world time" as a privileged reference frame is interesting, but it doesn't render clocks in other reference frames absolutely dilated -- not orbiting clocks, not in-falling clocks. Clocks that are moving uniformly along their own geodesics, in any and every reference frame, are only dilated from another frame, whether that frame is somehow privileged or not.

@Robert: As you know, square of acceleration 4-vector is invariant and equal to square of acceleration 3-vector, thus the latter is invariant too. The term "absolute" means "invariant".

"It is not detectable locally" - do not forget that almost all relativistic effects appear at comparing of distant events at different hypersurfaces of simultaneity and also "not detectable locally".

@James: "...falling into a gravitational field is relative"

A curvature of the such worldline is non-zero w.r.t. distant observer's frame, moreover, under a set of global hypersurfaces of simultaneity of any local inertial frame comoved with the particle at some moment.

"A clock moving uniformly does not dilate absolutely"

An integral under proper time along its worldline is less than the such integral for any particle, moving uniformly at large distance from the source, thus, the falling in stronger field clock dilate w.r.t. any distant clock of the same speed.

No question. The observer will observe a non-zeero curvature, and the clocks of observer and observed will vary. But the clock of a body moving uniformly will not dilate absolutely, only according to the observer.

... And a body orbiting or falling in a gravitational field is moving uniformly in its own reference frame.

If you do not like "absolute", please, use "invariant".

Any invariant dynamical quantity has a meaning at comparing (or "measuring") by some other one, of course.

I like absolute. A clock can vary in its tempo from one reference frame to another, but in its own frame, if moving uniformly, as when orbiting or falling, it absolutely does not dilate. (In this regard, an actually accelerating reference frame would observe clocks in other frames to be speeding up)

@Robert Low

“There seem to be two ways of understanding this claim:

1/ "I find the interpretation of the theory offensive to my view of how the world works." Fair enough, but don't expect everybody to share your aesthetics. Also, it seems to work rather well in spite of the offensiveness.”

I don't expect everybody to share my views. Everyone has freedom to believe in fairy tales. It seems you have ignored the websites, links to which I earlier attached to my post. Any of them disavows absurdity of relativity. On my part, I have already explained why dilation of time is impossible. That is enough to refute relativity. Moreover, the theory adopted (among others) such untrue things as :

- Time as forth dimension

- Spacetime

- Deflection of space

- Lack of ether

- Infinities in nature

and many more.

“2/ "The theory of relativity is mathematically inconsistent." If you can prove that special relativity is mathematically inconsistent, then you can prove that Euclidean geometry is mathematically inconsistent, and I seem to recall that that proves that arithmetic is inconsistent too. This is much too important to keep a secret, and it ought to be published immediately in a major journal.”

It is in many places, but needs searching. The ready I can refer to, are for instance (unfortunately in Polish):

http://www.pinopa.republika.pl/Predkosc_obiektow.html

http://pinopa.republika.pl/Udalosie.html

Major journals don't touch such things and you should know about it.

@Andrzej Lechowski

I've read your paper, which consists of simple assertions.

In order to refute relativity you would have to come up with more plausible explanations for the tests that have seemed to confirm the theory.

Here are some that relate to the Special Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment

FYI - unfortunately, the preceding link was truncated due to character set issues - copy & paste the entire link text, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment

(or James, please correct your link - copy the above link text and paste)...

James Arnold,

As you know, I'm not really conversant in GR, so perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement:

"... A clock can vary in its tempo from one reference frame to another, but in its own frame, if moving uniformly, as when orbiting or falling, it absolutely does not dilate. (In this regard, an actually accelerating reference frame would observe clocks in other frames to be speeding up)"

While I agree that a clock in a stable, circular orbit would not absolutely dilate. However, gravitational time dilation has been measured for clocks whose altitude varies by as little as a foot. Again, see http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm.

If a sufficiently precise clock were available, wouldn't it demonstrate local time dilation if it fell 1 foot? Am I out of context here, or something?

James D,

Great link. I hope Andrzej can give us a non-relativistic explanation.

In terms of GR, neither clock is moving uniformly -- each is being accelerated out of its geodesic, attempting to travel uniformly toward (accelerate toward from our frame of reference) the center of earth's mass. The clock at the higher elevation is moving faster because the grav field is weaker and the corresponding acceleration is lesser.

@James Arnold

“I've read your paper, which consists of simple assertions.

In order to refute relativity you would have to come up with more plausible explanations for the tests that have seemed to confirm the theory.”

There is no such test that confirms time dilation, because it's impossible. I thought I clearly enough clarified it in my article (why time cannot dilate). Time must always be of something, but first something must slow down in order to achieve its longer time. Could you do it otherwise? That means time is resultant. One minute cannot last 70 seconds. But if your watch shows so, that means the watch is to be blamed for wrong indication, not time.

“Here are some that relate to the Special Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment”

Quote:

“The Ives–Stilwell experiment tested the contribution of relativistic time dilation to the Doppler shift of light. The result was in agreement with the formula for the transverse Doppler effect, and was the first direct, quantitative confirmation of the time dilation factor.”

It's enough. My comment:

Such a source as Wikipedia

is as true as other media

Cause you can find nonsenses in it

employ your brain, at least a bit

Andrzej Lechowski, you object that "major journals don't touch such things and you should know about it." It is true that it is very hard to publish ether theories. In fact, they are often rejected without sufficient justification even if there is nothing to object. But, at least in principle, it is possible, as can be seen by some ether theories which have been published:

arXiv:0908.0591 Schmelzer, A condensed matter interpretation of SM fermions and gauge fields, Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009)

This is an ether theory for the standard model of particle physics, which derives all fermions and gauge fields we observe starting from a surprisingly simple model combined with a few principles like Euclidean symmetry.

arXiv:gr-qc/0205035 Schmelzer, A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with general-relativistic limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242

This is an ether theory of gravity, which is also compatible with modern science, because the equations (derived from a few principles about the ether) give, in a natural limit, the equations of general relativity. Here I have already given up attempts to publish it, but, wonder, I was invited by the chief redactor (Waldyr Alves Rodrigues Jr.) to publish it in his journal.

So you can judge, from the description of what has been done there, how difficult it is to publish ether theories in a mainstream journal. Your ether theory has to reach much more than string theory has with thousands of papers to get a first publication.

There is much to do yet in this domain. For example, not much has been found yet about the masses - only some argument (not really a derivation) that neutrino masses have to be much smaller, and that the massless part of the gauge group (which is strong + EM force) has to be U(3). Above arguments have to be worked out, much more would be open. Unification with gravity together with quantization of gravity seem possible but have to be worked out in detail.

But this is not for the poor, who need a job and therefore some publications. It is only for those independent scientists who can really afford to work 10 years without a single paper.

And it presupposes, of course, the knowledge of a lot of mainstream physics,

@Ilja Schmelzer

I think the problem emerges from not proper understanding of gravity. In order to justify existence of ether -> gravity it's necessary to accept existence of ether. Below the article on how to understand gravity:

http://www.eioba.com/a/4f0v/gravity-how-to-understand-it

From thermodynamic arguments Stephen Hawking realized that a black hole should have a nonzero temperature, and ought therefore to emit blackbody radiation.

@Andrzej, this is a text without formulas which has no chance to be published in any scientific journal.

@Ilja. I know. But... according to Feynman scientific procedure, first we must guess. It's the first step to further proceedings.

We must guess theories which are able to make predictions.

We already have theories which allow to make quite accurate predictions. So, a better theory has to be better in making predictions. Better means more accurate predictions, or correct where the current best theories make false predictions.

But at least the new theory should be able to recover almost all the predictions made by the theories we already have. The most reasonable way is to obtain the mathematical apparatus of the actual theories, their equations, in some limit from the new theory. Without the knowledge of the mathematical apparatus of the existing theories this seems impossible.

That's why it is very hard today to guess good theories.