RE: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.
The speed of light is only C locally in general relativity. The equivalence principle says that local observations of a freely-falling observer in a gravitational field will look just like local observations of an inertial observer in the flat spacetime of special relativity. Local means in a small region of spacetime--each observer has to only make measurements in their immediate region of space for a small period of time for the equivalence to work, and it only works precisely in the limit as the region of spacetime in which each makes their measurements becomes arbitrarily small. So, in the context of general relativity, if you have a global coordinate system which covers a large region of curved spacetime, like Schwarzschild coordinates around a black hole, then it is perfectly possible that the coordinate speed of light will be different from C (it is also true in special relativity that if you use a non-inertial coordinate system, i.e. one in which observers at rest in that coordinate system are accelerating and experiencing G-forces as a consequence, then the coordinate speed of light can be different from C here as well). But even though light exactly at the event horizon would be at rest in Schwarzschild coordinates (and note that you have no obligation to use Schwarzschild coordinates when analyzing a black hole, you could use some other global coordinate system where the event horizon is not at rest), from the local perspective of a freefalling observer, the light will still be measured to move at C as the observer falls through the event horizon and passes next to the light beam. Also, if you imagine a series of buoys closer and closer to the event horizon, which use rockets to maintain a constant Schwarzchild distance from the BH, then an observer falling in will see each successive buoy flying past him at closer to C, with the measured speed of the buoy approaching C in the limit as the buoy's distance from the horizon approaches 0. Jesse Mazer From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated. Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:37:08 -0800 Conjecture: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated. Notion: If the Speed of Light is not just a fixed constant but a fixed maxima, then, if Newton's 3 Laws of Inertia are to be maintained, especially regarding 'equal opposite' ... the current depiction of blackholes being able to constrain photons 100% infers that any random photon moving directly outward from the center-locus of a singularity can only be kept from forward linear motion by a force not just equal to, but necessarily greater than, its vector moment - presumed to be C. If only just '-C', then Probability would require blackholes be never 'black', but accumulatively brilliant white - unless - 'C' is out-maximummed. Or, the model has an error - and the dynamics of light restriction/containment are of a wholly different nature than currently presumed. Comments? Jamie Rose Ceptual Institute _ Get Hilary Duffs homepage with her photos, music, and more. http://celebrities.live.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.
Actually, John M, I believe in wave-packets (relevant to my off-list posts to you recently). I'm not a fan of 'gravitons' .. unless they turn out to be 'knots of spacetime'. But even if all you say is correct .. at some point in a chain of logical causality relations .. either notions stay consistent, or, an anomaly arises that requires development of a new-'imagined'. I wrote the conjecture to the list, because if those several 'conditions' have been presumed valid locally and individually, but, when weighed in, all together,\ don't stay consistently valid for all the factors/relations, then something's amiss, and I felt it worthwhile to state a conjunction situation that seems to point to such a dis-connect - an 'ooops' in the consistency fabric. I was more hoping for a discussion about where/how the mathematics doesn't just 'balance' C the speed of light (which seems the logical implication of 'C') .. such that spacetime ohmage/resistivity -is- '-C', but never more than that. The deductive conclusion might be, not that the event horizon is 'black' but that we 'see' black, because the event horizon is an enormous ever-increasing density of photons held motionless. They are there, in immobile stasis, never reaching external observers. A hyper-attraction model, on the other hand, would have all 'photons' still actively moving a) either at standard C, internal to the even horizon, or b) at C+, having first been overpowered by a more negative than -C inertial moments, and then, moving at C ... in an inertial field more super- conductive, than standard C-limited spacetime. Jamie John M wrote: Jamie, since BHs are figments of Hawkins' et al. imagination for 'something there must be', we can 'imagine' that something so as to bounce back those photons (you believe in) INSIDE once they got in and this is the reason why the darn blob is black. Imagination should not be constrained to imagined reality. MAke it so that it fits. (Hungarian proverb: Once it's goose, it should be fat). John --- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
