What if the universe is like a black hole only with time instead of space?
>>7942042
>>>/popsci/
>>7942052
black holes dont exist so its irrelevant
>>7942071
It is proven that something exists there that can be measured. For now, it is called a black hole. Therefore black holes exist. Whether they fulfill all your expectations or definitions is other question.
>>7942042
I never understood this picture, especially the cone thingies. Can anyone give an explanation on this?
>>7942042
You're saying our universe compacts all of the time from a higher dimension into some lump of unchanging, condensed (present moment) time?
Implying matter's condensed time
Which'd mean black holes have hella present momentness
DEBUNKADOO'D OP
>>7942042
I actually tried to understand what you try to say here, but with that explanation...
Your space is on one axis, so one dimension? Light moves trough time?
What is Z-axis? (your light cone seem to be 3D)
>>7942071
Then what was OP's mom rimming last night?
Trying to comprehend this is causing exceptions in my head...
so basically we're thinking of time as a tangible material and space as a constant?
how would that even work...
>>7942183
well, it is pretty spooky how the border of the observable universe is somewhat similar to the event horizon of a black hole (no information from outside the boundary can ever hope to reach us)
who knows, OP
How to understand the light cone?
Is the moving observer inside the cone because it experiences more time per moved distance, due to moving at less than c?
Why are light rays at a 45 degree angle when it's said that light experiences no time?
>>7942174
It represebts the y(time) with x(arbitrary distance and direction). For simplicity the graph is one dimensional. Yet it's fully applicable on three dimensions so it matters not. If the distance is presented in units of 1/c the light speed is represented as a straight-line with inclinination 45°. All for simplicity. And as c is the fastest you can travel certain characteristics of relativity can be derived from the graph. As time-dilation and length-dilation.
>>7942421
An object moving along (down) the t axis, would be at rest in space. Any other paths within the cone are various configurations of movement in space. The 45 degree slope of the c line is arbitrary.
>>7942436
An object moving [up] along the t-axis is resting in space. Down represents the past. And yes c is arbitrary. But the light cone is a good way to present the effects of relativity.
>>7942414
How're time and 45 degree angles correlated?
>>7942414
>How to understand the light cone?
Z axis is time, X and Y are space. Vertical angles are therefore speed (change in distance per change in time). The speed of light is thus an angle, in that case 45 degrees.
Point in spacetime that it is possible to travel to (or from) are in the interior of the cone, because travel between them is less than C. Points outside cannot be reached. For example, alpha centauri is 4 lightyears away. Alpha centauri 5 years from now is inside the cone - it's theoretically possible to get from here now to there then. Alpha centauri 5 minutes from now is outside the cone - can't be done.
Everything you are currently seeing is on the surface of the lower cone. Everything that will see you as you currently exist is on the surface of the upper cone.
Note: everything I have said above has nothing to do with relativity. Relativity just makes it so your own velocity is always zero and light's velocity is always c.
http://m.indiatimes.com/news/india/nasa-s-says-indian-scientist-s-theory-is-correct-black-holes-don-t-really-exist-247757.html
>>7942585
Semantics..
It is measured that there is something and it is called a black hole. Therefore black holes exist, whether they match your expectations or definitions is a different story.
What does the world line of a photon look like from it's perspective? Or it that a nonsensical question given length contraction, (or is that only a problem in the 1D ST diagrams in the direction of motion? I'm confused and this shit is hard...
>>7942629
It's nonsensical because you cannot take a reference frame travelling at the speed of light
>>7942585
Wow India so prosperous
India superpower by 2020 no doubt about it
>>7942643
I suspected as much, but given that it moves uniformly I needed reassurance. However I'm looking for why you can't. As mentioned above it moves uniformly, so for instance a photon orbiting a black hole, if it was replaced by a point particle with some mass x, the particle would be considered to be in a inertital reference frame right? What changes between the two scenarios?
If messy as fuck but I think you get the picture, or at least you see where I fuck up?
>>7942583
>Relativity just makes it so your own velocity is always zero and light's velocity is always c.
Can c be thought of as a sort of reached infinity, since any lesser speed is minuscule compared to it? Is it possible to construct a model where c is infinite?
>>7942695
A particle with mass wouldn't be moving at the speed of light.
>>7942756
>Can c be thought of as a sort of reached infinity, since any lesser speed is minuscule compared to it?
Yes, kind of.
>Is it possible to construct a model where c is infinite?
I think that's just classical mechanics.
>>7942789
Dude please, I fucking know that. That's another way of saying you don't know.
>>7942883
It's not that 'we don't know'. In special relativity, it's mathematically impossible.
There's this one equation (which I will not format here because no LaTeX on mobile) that, when v=c, gives you m=0. That's the mathematical explanation; when something moves at the speed of light all kinds of equations break down.
The physics explanation is that c is in some way an infinite speed compared to any other velocity. You can never accelerate something enough so it will move at c, just like in classical mechanics nothing can have infinite velocity. The question 'is infinite velocity a valid reference frame?' Is nonsensical because reference frames obviously are only defined for finite speeds.
It's undefined.
