Special Relativity and Black Holes

[NewDescartes]

How would you know ? It is clear you can't do physics.

The case of a body undergoing constant acceleration is well described by the Rindler space-time. No black hole is formed in any frame of reference.

That would be an horizon, not a black hole.

The Rindler space-time coordinate system is confusing, and doesn't translate from mathematical jargon to English very well. How does an infinite amount of energy moving at the speed of light not create a black hole? Numbers and coordinates prevent it? That isn't very convincing.

 

[Mentz114]

LOL. Physics is philosophy.

Getting back to the core of the subject, you said that an object traveling @ C will not become a black hole. Why? This is an apparently obvious truth to me, and I would like to know why mainstream physics doesn't believe this to be true.

Physics is an experimental science.

When I was very small it was 'apparent and obvious' to me that the whole world was a cot and I was the centre of the universe. Sadly, I was wrong.

We've done our best to explain to you why a body won't become a black hole, however fast you accelerate it. This is based on theories which explain those things we can see very well. It is not dogma but the considered view of a lot of people smarter than you or I.

[edit]I think your problem is 'a body moving at c'. There's no such thing for us. It looks as if nature won't let this happen without erecting a 'horizon' that stops us perceiving it.

 

[NewDescartes]

Physics is an experimental science.

When I was very small it was 'apparent and obvious' to me that the whole world was a cot and I was the centre of the universe. Sadly, I was wrong.

We've done our best to explain to you why a body won't become a black hole, however fast you accelerate it. This is based on theories which explain those things we can see very well. It is not dogma but the considered view of a lot of people smarter than you or I.

[edit]I think your problem is 'a body moving at c'. There's no such thing for us. It looks as if nature won't let this happen without erecting a 'horizon' that stops us perceiving it.

I completely agree with everything you say here. You guys are more familiar with the subject, so perhaps I should listen more, but there is a huge hole in physics and this subject is at the core of it. I only wish to debate a little to see why present day physics comes to irrational decisions.

There are bodies that move at C, but those are bodies are beyond an event horizon. Objects moving at C do turn into a black hole.

 

[JesseM]

It is highly red shifted @ .999999% C. It flat lines @ C. We never catch an object moving @ C, nor can our probing light rays.

In relativity it's impossible for an object with mass to move exactly at c, only massless particles like photons can move at c. If an object is moving slower than light in one inertial frame, then it's moving slower than light in all inertial frames, and in every one of these inertial frames the energy needed to increase an object's speed approaches infinity as its speed approaches c, so you can never accelerate it to c with any finite energy.

 

[JesseM]

And what if an object passes right next to you at a high fraction of c? You could probably observe it as it passed an millimeter from your face, right? (especially since the moment after it passed you, it would be moving away from you rather than towards you and thus highly blueshifted rather than redshifted)

Whoops, I got things backwards here--the light would actually be highly blueshifted as the object approached you, contrary to what NewDescartes was saying. Only when it was moving away from you would it be highly redshifted.

 

[NewDescartes]

Whoops, I got things backwards here--the light would actually be highly blueshifted as the object approached you, contrary to what NewDescartes was saying. Only when it was moving away from you would it be highly redshifted.

Yeah I caught that, but I understood what you meant. Yes, objects moving away from you would be red shifted at close to C, to the point of non visibility. This explain's "[URL paradox[/URL].

All I am arguing is that if matter travels at velocity C, it is a black hole. Sure the original mass of the object is invariant, but the energy needed to accelerate the object to C is infinite. A black hole is needed to accelerate mass to light speed. Reference points are irrelevant due to the inability of information to pass.

Special Relativity alone accounts for black holes. General Relativity is not needed.

 

[JesseM]

All I am arguing is that if matter travels at velocity C, it is a black hole. Sure the original mass of the object is invariant, but the energy needed to accelerate the object to C is infinite.

Well, that's exactly why it's impossible to have a massive object moving at c in SR.

A black hole is needed to accelerate mass to light speed.

How can a black hole accelerate mass to light speed? This certainly isn't true in general relativity, and in pure special relativity there is no spacetime curvature and thus no gravity to alter the motion of nearby objects.

This also seems like weird circular reasoning--you say a black hole is a massive object moving at light speed, but you also say a black hole is needed to accelerate massive objects to light speed in the first place?

 

[NewDescartes]

Well, that's exactly why it's impossible to have a massive object moving at c in SR.

How can a black hole accelerate mass to light speed? This certainly isn't true in general relativity, and in pure special relativity there is no spacetime curvature and thus no gravity to alter the motion of nearby objects.

This also seems like weird circular reasoning--you say a black hole is a massive object moving at light speed, but you also say a black hole is needed to accelerate massive objects to light speed in the first place?

If you are interested I'll share my logic with you. I don't want to come off as promoting a crackpot theory and get banned. I know how closed minded physics is and am struggling to convince Science and Nature to publish my work. The problem is I am more of a philosopher than a physicist. I do have some Mathematical proofs to show, and a descent idea for some experiments and possible predictions for results.

 

[George Jones]

I'm closing this thread, which, as indicated by its title, has never been about mainstream relativity.

Physics Forums rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374,

in part, state

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, and, if appropriate, an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

Independent Research Guidelines:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301.