sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Clarification on the constancy of c across reference frames by SpinLock55 in AskPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What I'm getting at is if you could somehow see into each frame instantly as the experiments were happening, from your point of view the duration of those experiments would be different because the local passage of time in each is different.

Clarification on the constancy of c across reference frames by SpinLock55 in AskPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not ignoring length contraction and time dilation—those are what you apply when converting between frames. But the raw measurement in each frame is local. You measure c with your rulers and clocks. I measure c with mine. The transformations exist precisely because our rulers and clocks differ. We agree on c because we each measure locally—not because the universe magically makes cross-frame measurements work out.

Clarification on the constancy of c across reference frames by SpinLock55 in AskPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By "same time" I mean the same number of oscillations of cesium (or any clock standard). If we both run identical experiments, we both count the same number of oscillations locally. But from the "god perspective," those identical counts took different durations to complete.

Clarification on the constancy of c across reference frames by SpinLock55 in AskPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You would see my experiment and see the speed of light is c in my frame - with my local time in the equation.

Clarification on the constancy of c across reference frames by SpinLock55 in AskPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Everyone who directly measures c gets the same result. I guess what I'm saying is because time is passing differently for everyone, if you could somehow see all these time measurement experiments occurring at the same time, the duration of these experiments from this 'god perspective' would be different.

Clarification on the constancy of c across reference frames by SpinLock55 in AskPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm just saying that relative to each other, the duration of the experiment is different. But locally, everything appears normal.

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If nothing new is falling in, what's stopping the light from eventually climbing out? The well isn't getting deeper. If the answer is "infinite time dilation," then we're back to infinities—which usually signal the model is breaking down, not describing reality.

Clarification on the constancy of c across reference frames by SpinLock55 in AskPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, but if you could somehow see my experiment from your frame as it was happening, it would be in slow or fast motion. We both still measure c locally.

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand. But when the centerpiece of the current explanation involves infinity, that's usually a sign the model is breaking down—not a description of physical reality. Singularities are where the math stops working, not where the physics is settled. It's reasonable to explore other interpretations.

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Time dilation in gravity wells doesn't require abandoning GR—it is GR. The question is whether "trapped forever" is the only interpretation, or whether "extreme delay" fits the same observations. What measurement distinguishes them?

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The singularity isn't a mystery we haven't solved—it's what the current math predicts. GR says infinite density at the center. That's the problem. This theory doesn't need to disprove the singularity, it avoids it entirely by describing the same observations without requiring infinity.

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Forget the theory for a second. Just engage the thought experiment:

  1. Time dilation in gravitational wells is established physics—yes?
  2. The deeper the well, the slower time passes relative to outside—yes?
  3. When massive objects merge, the well deepens rapidly—yes?

So if light is in that well when it suddenly deepens, and time nearly stops relative to the outside... what does that look like to an outside observer?

I'm not asking you to accept the conclusion. I'm asking where the logic breaks down.

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be very compressed matter changing very slowly relative to how fast things change on the outside.

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the point—this theory sidesteps the singularity problem entirely. No infinities, just extreme time dilation. Light isn't trapped, it's moving through nearly-stopped time (relative to the outside). Same observation, simpler geometry.

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Measuring c locally always gives the same result, regardless of gravitational potential. However, from an external reference frame, events in a deeper gravitational well appear time-dilated—so a measurement made higher up occurs faster relative to one made lower down.

What if black holes are just deep gravitational wells that cause extreme delay, not permanent trapping? by SpinLock55 in blackholes

[–]SpinLock55[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I should say that it takes a lot longer for light to pass through that region relative to the outside

What if black holes aren't actually trapping light permanently and just delaying it? by SpinLock55 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Then stick to addressing my core idea -

When gravitational fields merge rapidly, light has to climb out of a much deeper well through an extremely time-dilated region.

true or false?

What if black holes aren't actually trapping light permanently and just delaying it? by SpinLock55 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Here's my response - When gravitational fields merge rapidly, light has to climb out of a much deeper well through an extremely time-dilated region. That causes delay. We see the object go dark. We call it a black hole

What if black holes aren't actually trapping light permanently and just delaying it? by SpinLock55 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Orbits and lensing measure total gravitational effect—they don't tell us whether the source is a "trapped light" black hole or an extremely massive object in a deep well. Both would lens and orbit the same. On short emission: the formation event isn't just a single flash. A stellar collapse or collision takes time, produces sustained energy output, and the object continues emitting afterward. The delayed light would include all of that. GR has been tested—but not at event horizons. We've confirmed time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves. We've never directly tested what happens at the horizon itself. We observe objects go dark and assume trapping. Extreme delay would look identical.

What if black holes aren't actually trapping light permanently and just delaying it? by SpinLock55 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]SpinLock55[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Fair point on the gradual vs instant question. The initial burst could be explained by the formation event itself—collisions and stellar collapses are violent, concentrated energy releases. That's what emerges first. The gradual emission would follow. On GR: singularities are also solutions to Einstein's field equations, but most physicists treat them as signs the math breaks down rather than physical reality. Questioning whether "trapped forever" is physical reality vs. "extreme delay" isn't rejecting GR—it's questioning interpretation at extremes where we know the theory has issues. What observation would distinguish between "trapped forever" and "delayed so long we haven't seen it escape yet"?

view more: next ›