Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.. "You're discussing a movie about a guy who can fly, see through walls, and bullets bounce off his chest, ...
Even as a seven y/o, I'd watch and wonder why, after having six bullets bounce off his chest, he ducked when the crook threw the empty gun at him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
Sounds like a big dumb waste of time due to it all being guessing mixed with impossibility.
See my earlier quote of Pliny.
To even consider this, we have to suspend our belief in the physiological effects of such an extremely dense gravitational field.
Secondly, the event horizon merely represents the boundary beyond which no EM can escape. Inside that boundary, EM can still travel parallel to the spherical event horizon (like the motorcycle guy in the Cage of Death).
This puzzle is not necessarily consistent with the laws of physics. It is to illustrate points of science which are profound and contradictory.
3 ASTRONAUTS ENTER A BLACK HOLE
AN EXERCISE IN LOGIC
A DEMONSTRATION OF DEDUCTIVE PRINCIPLES IN OUTER SPACE
The Problem. Three astronauts enter the event horizon of a black hole and take positions one above the other a short distance inside the event horizon. The first astronaut is at the lowest point within the event horizon. The second astronaut is a short distance above the first. The third astronaut is a short distance above the second. Summarize each astronaut's views of himself and his companions.
(To be continued.)
NOTE: All available information is contained within the Problem.
HINT: Never assume.
Observations. The first astronaut sees nothing below him, not even his own suit. Looking up, he sees the second and third astronauts and light entering the event horizon. The second astronaut sees nothing below him, not even his own suit. Looking up, he sees the third astronaut and light entering the event horizon. The third astronaut sees nothing below him, not even his own suit. Looking up, he sees light entering the event horizon.
Conclusions. The third astronaut sees light entering the event horizon, but cannot see anything below him, because light cannot reflect upward, so everything below him is void. The astronauts below him see the same effect. The second astronaut sees the astronaut above him and light entering the event horizon, but nothing below himself. The first astronaut sees the two astronauts above him and light entering the event horizon, but nothing below himself. That the third and second astronauts see nothing beneath themselves, but only upwards is unique for all three astronauts. They see above them what the higher astronaut cannot see underneath himself, because light can only move inward in a black hole. The astronauts can see nothing beneath them, or even laterally, because light can only travel downward, not even across the width of a black hole.
Ramifications. Are these examples of paradoxes? The astronauts can see each other's suits, but cannot see their own suits. They are observing each other within the same environment, yet see very different representations of reality within their own view.
Is there a problem in finding the key that opens the door to the post? Maybe you're using the wrong key.
Are you having issues understanding what you see through the telescope? Do objects appear farther away than they should be? Maybe you're looking through the wrong end; the more you look, the more distant they become. This post isn't about science, it isn't even about black holes; it's about reasoning through a problem to find a solution. It's also about taking a short break from a daily routine. This "brain-teaser" is like: a crossword puzzle; an optical illusion; a "minute-mystery". Several "cautions" were written into the message:
"..not necessarily consistent with the laws of physics..."
"..to illustrate points of science..."
"A DEMONSTRATION"
These warnings were advisories not to take the challenge too seriously. Each statement has a meaning that relates to the intent of the puzzle. First, to simplify the narrative, liberties were taken with laws of physics. To emphasize the focus of the puzzle, some principles were set aside. Not all laws that apply to black holes, light and gravity were followed. Second, aspects of the puzzle were "exaggerated" to make it easier to see effects of the principles involved. Third, this is merely an example of the forces which are at work under these conditions. It is to show how they function; they are not predictors of what happens when a black hole is encountered.
This post is: A puzzle; a fun thing: a diversion; entertainment; a brief "detour" from a daily agenda.
This post is not: Precise; realistic; authentic; to scale; reliable; guaranteed; "true-to-life".
This post: Is to induce a smile and a perspective on how forces effect each other and how one force overcomes another under the right conditions.
This post does not offer: College-credit; advance placement to higher-level courses; a recommendation to study or teach at a prestigious school; an invitation to tour the large hadron collider in geneva.
The post is meant to be enjoyed and to reflect parts of our universe we don't understand yet. If you're not having fun, why not?
[font="Times New Roman"] Is there a problem in finding the key that opens the door to the post? Maybe you're using the wrong key.
If this were a fairy tail that some author wrote, then only he could "know" what happens in his make-believe world. You write your solution as if you were that author.
Let me point out that you're making a common mistake-- you're forgetting that spacetime in a dense field like that "inside" a black hole only looks distorted to those outside the black hole (or those much farther "in" or "out" like your three astronauts. Spacetime is always flat locally. We might compare that to our own observations of geometry here on Earth-- The world IS flat, locally. Euclidean geometry only applies in textbooks and on very local scales throughout the Universe.
Even in a black hole, Spacetime will appear flat to the local observer. An astronaut on the space station feels like he's travelling in a straight line. A light beam inside a black hole also feels like it's travelling in a straight line, and it is-- but as it travels towards the event horizon, it never gets there-- it "falls back," ie- travels in a straight line in space time which would looked curve to an outsider.
What happens when you toss a ball to your friend? It travels in a parabolic path which can be traced out on graph paper- horizontal distance vs vertical distance....What happens when you toss a ball straight up? It falls back down along the same vertical path (assuming it doesn't travel with escape velocity and is able to cross the "event horizon").... What happened to our parabolic path?...It's still there, if we graph the trajectory as height vs time.
Your description is only correct if we assume there is a continuum of event horizons at all "vertical distances" inside the event horizon and that no EM wave can travel vertically at all, ie- not really a single spherical "horizon" with no "thickness" but an event "solid volume."
I submit that inside what we outsiders would call an event horizon, there does exist multiple event horizons, but they occur at progressively closer intervals and apply relatively to the source of the EM waves....That would make my first "solution" correct-- each guy would see himself as being normal, because he's viewing himself locally where light still travels at 3 x 10^8m/s and he still looks 176cm tall, the same as he was on Earth....But his companions would look distorted because, as close as they are to him, spacetime is noticeably different at progressively smaller intervals.
no mistake here.. my statements are complete and well-supported.. you have your opinions and i have mine.. your assessments are no more credible or predictive than mine or anyone else's.. i challenge you to show me where im wrong.. what was unbelievable yesterday is observed and discussed today.. 40 years ago, black holes were predicted but none were observed; today, they're as well-known as stars everywhere; 20 years ago, dark matter and dark energy were unheard of and noone would have believed they exist; today, everyone is working to figure out where these forces come from and where they are taking us.. you sound concerned about my posts and you take issue with me about what i can talk about and what i cannot.. im just stating what i believe; you take issue with my saying it.. i may be wrong, but there is no way any of us can be more right than any other "armchair expert".. and none of us have license or right to say someone else is wrong.. there is a difference of opinion, but there is no proving what is factual or fantastic..
3 astronauts enter a black hole.
The first says "What relevance is the color or shade of the hole?"
The second says "How could we enter a black hole when we had no way of reaching it from Earth?"
The third says "Why are we wasting time entertaining the possibility of such an event?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
