Turning back time

[Reach]

Re: Turning back time

Reach, how can you confirm that?

We can theorize all these things, such as what is a wormhole, blackhole, or even an electron and what do the do. But we can't say they are concrete facts. However, because we see things the way we see, we can say that blackholes do exist and a blackhole does have a high level of gravity pull, one that smashes everything together in a very, very, dense mass. We can also say that dragons exist, but do they?

I mean, as far as I know, electrons do not exist, yet, we know they are there.

~Tsugomaru

You can confirm it by using equations we know work and by using simple, common sense.

Do not get started on the whole 'you cannot prove it' buisness, please.

Einsteins GR has been confirmed again and again, and solutions to such describe black holes nicely. Indeed, there are MANY things about a black hole which we cannot confirm.

However, I pointed out that it would be impossible to pass through the black hole (or even pass the event horizon). You can use some rather basic common sense and general knowledge of how gravity effects objects to show this. The event horizon of a black hole essentially is a point where the escape velocity is equivilant to the speed of light.

To give a tangible reference here, the escape velocity of Earth is some ~~25,000 miles per hour (EV refers to the speed which you must travel to escape the objects pull of gravity). The escape velocity at the event horizon of a black hole is 669,600,000 mph. Now apply a bit of common sense here and you can see clearly why you wouldn't even get to the event horizon; the gravitational force is just too strong.

You may ask yourself, if the gravitation field is so strong would it not just pull you in very quickly? And the answer is no. This is because of what are called 'tidal forces' (this is why tides exist). Essentially what this means is that the gravitational pull on one part of your body is going to be different than the pull on another part of your body. You will be completely ripped apart. As the gravitational force here increases so does the tidal force.

Also, since the escape velocity is the speed of light, no light can pass the event horizon. As such, you have a lot of energy trapped within the black hole. A lot...really, I mean it. You would be annihilated instananeously upon entry (even though this is again, impossible). I could extrapolate that the temperature inside is likely near that of the temperature during the big bang.

So really, there is no sense arguing it might be possible to enter a black hole, and come vis-a-vis with some parallel universe, or that we are living inside one of these fiendish givers of live.

[Kekiz]

Re: Turning back time

The escape velocity at the event horizon of a black hole is 669,600,000 mph.

I hear scientists are good at making up numbers. Im not atempting to disprove black holes cause im pretty sure they are real. But people just make that kind of **** up.
Sure its going to be something ridiculously high but there is no way to know the escape velocity of something that is a theory.

[darkdieuguerre]

Re: Turning back time

I hear scientists are good at making up numbers. Im not atempting to disprove black holes cause im pretty sure they are real. But people just make that kind of **** up.
Sure its going to be something ridiculously high but there is no way to know the escape velocity of something that is a theory.

Since light cannot escape black holes (which has been "proven" according to the observations of black holes indirectly), the escape velocity of a black hole is at least the speed of light. From (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_Light), the speed of light is about 670,616,629.384 miles per hour. Therefore, the escape velocity of a black hole is about 670,616,629.384 miles per hour. Unless you're assuming that the universe is not enough of a vaccum for you, in which case we might have to subtract a few thousand miles per hour, but the overall meaning is that nothing can escape a black hole. Not even light.

[Kekiz]

Re: Turning back time

There is still no way to know something like that. Its just an assumption. It could be twice that.

[Sf。Yami]

Re: Turning back time

If it exists, this might be dangerous for yourself. If you time-travel back, there are actually 2 worlds: 1 in history with you, 1 in present with or without you. You always change the history when you time travel back. There always happens something to you.

[darkdieuguerre]

Re: Turning back time

There is still no way to know something like that. Its just an assumption. It could be twice that.

Did you read my statement?

the escape velocity of a black hole is at least the speed of light

If that is false, then the escape velocity must be less than the speed of light, so technically light cannot escape a black hole, yet it can't escape it. Contradiction. Therefore, the escape velocity of a black hole is at least the speed of light.

[Reach]

Re: Turning back time

I hear scientists are good at making up numbers. Im not atempting to disprove black holes cause im pretty sure they are real. But people just make that kind of **** up.
Sure its going to be something ridiculously high but there is no way to know the escape velocity of something that is a theory.

Look up the definition of a theory.

It is fairly simple to figure out the escape velocity of a black hole, actually. No light can escape beyond a certain point of the black hole (which is why we can't see them. They must be detected using other methods). This is arbitrarily called the event horizon, and since no light passes beyond this point the escape velocity at this point is the speed of light.


And no, the escape velocity at the event horizon is not twice that. It could be any number of times that beyond the event horizon, but at the event horizon it is c. I am not going to get into why this is exactly, but if you think about it logically for a minute or two you can probably figure it out, since it's pretty basic stuff. Remember, a black hole is just a ridiculously strong gravitational field.

[Kekiz]

Re: Turning back time

And no, the escape velocity at the event horizon is not twice that.

Good job completley missing what i said. What is with you reach and ranting on about stuff that isnt even related to the point.

And how do you know its not twice the speed of light? You dont know anything. Stop acting like you do. Just because you say its not doesnt mean its true.
Yes it has to at "least" be the speed of light but that doesnt mean it is the speed of light.
Im sorry this concept is way over your head.

how are black holes even related to going back in time. If it did take you somewhere it would just be somewhere else in space, not somewhere else in time.

[RandomPscho]

Re: Turning back time

A huge amount of time dilation occurs around black holes.

The event horizon by definition is the spot where the escape velocity is equal to that of the speed of light. It is not twice the speed of light because that would not fit the definition of an event horizon!!! The closer you get to the center of the black hole, the more velocity you would need to escape. It is like a gradient. For this reason there must be a spot in which the escape velocity equals the speed of light, the event horizon! Get over it kekiz, please. It is not over anyone's head as long as you actually think about what you are saying.

The escape velocity at the event horizon of a black hole is 669,600,000 mph.

I hear scientists are good at making up numbers. Im not atempting to disprove black holes cause im pretty sure they are real. But people just make that kind of **** up.
Sure its going to be something ridiculously high but there is no way to know the escape velocity of something that is a theory.

That is not some random number, it is the speed of light, although it is rounded. The definition of the speed of light, c, is 670,616,629.384 MPH. And as Reach has said, look up the definition of a theory, please.

[Kekiz]

Re: Turning back time

You still totally miss the point that there is no way to know that. When you go to a black whole and measure the escape velocity yourself then come back and tell me. For now there is no way to measure that. You yourself need to get over it.

you still dont even know if black holes are real yet you know so much about them. Reminds me of religion.

[RandomPscho]

Re: Turning back time

Since you refuse to look up the definition of theory, I will for you.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Theories are not just "well... hmmm.. theres this empty space out there... i think its from alien technology hiding it!" Theories have a logical foundation and a way of experimentally testing them. Everything is a theory in a sense because nothing can be 100% proven. If an experiment disproves the theory, the theory will either be changed to fit the experimentation or be proven false. Have you ever wondered why its Pythagorean THEOREM? It is because it is impossible to test an infinite number of possible triangles. Thus there is always a chance, however small it may be, that one possibility will not work. So just because it is a theorem, you say it doesn't work, even though you have used it hundreds of times and the answer is always right?

Yes black holes are a theory. They explain, in a logical sense, the reason why some things are getting sucked into and why light is bending or even disappearing around objects that cannot be seen in space. Even if they do not exist, as you might like to believe, attributes of an imaginary one would still be able to be logically found. If it sucks in through gravitational force, the closer you are, the higher the gravitational force. Thus the amount of force needed to escape the gravitational pull would be relative to the distance from the center of the pull, forming a gradient. They cannot be seen, so light cannot escape them, but there is a point around the black where we do see light again. This spot where the light stops is the event horizon. And, then, at this point the escape velocity would be equal to that of the speed of light.

[Reach]

Re: Turning back time

Good job completley missing what i said. What is with you reach and ranting on about stuff that isnt even related to the point.

Because what you are saying is irrelevant and not true. We're not talking about philosophical nonsense in this thread, but cold hard scientific evidence and data.

And incase you havn't read your own posts, you bare not a shred of it other than irrelevancies and proving that you have not done any research on this topic whatsoever. I am not here to babysit you or give you a class on astrophysics and black holes. Why don't you go do some research into where this information is derived before tooting your horn about how noone is able to show that anything is true.

You dont know anything. Stop acting like you do.

Remind me, why are you posting here? This IS critical thinking, incase you wern't sure.

Just because you say its not doesnt mean its true.

Really, I didn't know that. However, none of that information is my ideas, but rather is taken from a bank of scientific information and things that have been studied.

Yes it has to at "least" be the speed of light but that doesnt mean it is the speed of light.
Im sorry this concept is way over your head.

Apparently scientific method and doing a little research is quite over your head, as well. Here, I actually have evidence of this fact.

"you still dont even know if black holes are real yet you know so much about them. Reminds me of religion."

Here's a bunch of philosophical nonsense if I've ever seen any. Really, just like you don't know kenya is a place because you havn't been there? So i'm just going to ignore all evidence that shows that there are extreme gravitational fields in this universe. Heard of Stephen Hawking? He's famous for a reason.

how are black holes even related to going back in time. If it did take you somewhere it would just be somewhere else in space, not somewhere else in time.

They're not, really. The thread has gone off topic. There are some purely hypothetical ideas about blackholes and time travel, but nothing scientific (not that time travel is really scientific to begin with).



I'm going to take one more stab at this.


Maybe I'll ask, are you familiar with calculus? Have you heard of the intermediate value theorem? I could actually produce a very nice proof using it.

The gravitational field intensity could be plotted by a function in time. Imagine this. Now then, I know that at some point, the field produces an EV less than light.

I also know that at some point, the field produces an EV more than light. From here, we can deduce since the function is continuous, there HAS TO EXIST A POINT somewhere between these two where it is EXACTLY the speed of light. It just cannot be denied. Doing so is just plain old ignoring common sense.

This is the Schwarzchild Radius, and there are equations to explain this. Then from here we can arbitrarily define the event horizon to where space is no longer visible.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Turning back time

What is with you reach and ranting on about stuff that isnt even related to the point.

And how do you know its not twice the speed of light? You dont know anything. Stop acting like you do. Just because you say its not doesnt mean its true.

Wait a minute, would you like to tell me who it was who was ranting one more time kekiz?

There are a few reasons why people think blackholes relate to time travel. One of which is when someone hears about its gravitational force and thinks, "hey, maybe time cant escape it either" or "if its so strong maybe it can pull you into the past/futre" both of which are an idiots point of view.

I always though of black holes as what reach described in that there is a different gravitational pull on different parts on your body instead of it compressing you into a cube. I heard a concept once that sounds stupid but it was actually an interesting thought (even if it did have no scientific thought behind it). It said that (relating to the living in a black hole idea, and also the thought of a black hole compressing objects) a black hole could possibly compress massive amounts of matter into the tiny sphere which then exploded and created the big bang which expanded the universe inside of the black hole itself. Although it can be counted as an illconceived though it is the first idea i have heard explaining how that sphere got there to begin with. Of course you could just say that with the properties of black holes that we know of now say that that kind of expansion would be very much improbable (especially because it would be extremely hard to have a center point of gravity inside a rapidly changing part of space that has a gravitational force greater than any others found).

One other thing related to time, if it ever was possible to go into the past dont you think the things you would have changed would not have happened to begin with merely because you would have stopped yourself or that event? It is becoming more and more than apparent to me that the only thing close to an idea of time travel would be to move a group of atoms so fast that time would SEEM to be going slower around them. Isnt that part of the theory of relativity anyway?

[Kekiz]

Re: Turning back time

Its funny how much time you spend writing nonsense. You have no evidence for anything and just make up everything and say there is evidence.

Its like when people say there is evidence of god and then never show any and just use that as their arguement. At any rate you still missed what i said so good game reach. Quit wasting your time trying to prove something that you cant get evidence for. Sure there has to be a point somewhere on a black hole thats the speed of light but you dont know where and if it goes beyond that.

The only information you have to go on is that its strong enough to pull in light. That doesnt mean anything.

Going on your style of reasoning i heard there was evidence that blackholes arnt holes and are just extremley dense matter that has a gravitational feild thats extremley powerful. Sure that might be true but what evidence. There is no evidence. I just made that up.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Turning back time

Its funny how much time you spend writing nonsense. You have no evidence for anything and just make up everything and say there is evidence.

Its like when people say there is evidence of god and then never show any and just use that as their arguement. At any rate you still missed what i said so good game reach. Quit wasting your time trying to prove something that you cant get evidence for. Sure there has to be a point somewhere on a black hole thats the speed of light but you dont know where and if it goes beyond that.

The only information you have to go on is that its strong enough to pull in light. That doesnt mean anything.

Going on your style of reasoning i heard there was evidence that blackholes arnt holes and are just extremley dense matter that has a gravitational feild thats extremley powerful. Sure that might be true but what evidence. There is no evidence. I just made that up.

If you are going to go off of the arguement that we cant PROVE any of it for sure than i am sorry to say that you will be completely and utterly annihilated by your own arguement.

Incase you were wondering, the little theory i posted was just from one of the friends i have deep conversations with and like i said it has ABSOLUTELY no sort of reasoning to support it.

Also, yes you could come up with something off the top of your head and call it good but eventually you will be proven wrong unless it is on a topic in which you cant be proven wrong. However this is not the case because whether or not you are willing to accept the evidence given doesnt matter because ignorant people are still proven wrong even if they dont think so.

One last thing, whats that about writing about nonesence? I believe that you are the one who trying to prove people wrong with your own reasonings and not by any sort of proof. Rather, the other people have given ideas that have actually been known to produce even the slightest amounts of evidence in its case as opposed to your unsupported thoughts on the subject.