Logical Proof That Black Holes Can't Exist

[Spin-Analyser]

1. Three ships approach a 'black hole'. One ship continuously accelerates at a constant rate to keep itself stationary relative to the 'black hole'. One ship cuts off its engines and free-falls. The last ship accelerates away from the hovering ship and steadily increases its acceleration at an ever increasing rate so that it's always moving away from the hovering ship at exactly the same speed as the the free-falling ship is in the opposite direction. From the perspective of the hovering ship the other two ships are continuously becoming more length contracted and time dilated to keep their relative velocities below the speed of light. According to the standard description if we then switch to the perspective of the ship that's accelerating away from the black hole there's no contradiction between the two frames of reference, which is right. This is special relativity. Now if we switch to the perspective of the free-falling ship then according to the standard description it's perfectly okay for the free-falling ship to reach and cross the event horizon despite the fact that it can never happen from the other two ships, or any other objects perspective. This makes no sense. It's a direct contradiction. You have to use multiple coordinate systems to describe the whole thing. If you treat special and general relativity as equivalents of each other then you can use a single unified coordinate system that covers the entire manifold, which you should always be able to do. It's not okay to contradict yourself like this and then claim that it's a self consistent description of reality.

2. Black holes are described as having an event horizon that's expanding outwards at the speed of light locally (slower from a distance as an inverse square). Information propagates through space-time at the speed of light (again, slower as an inverse square of the distance from the 'black hole'), so how can the gravitational influence of the black hole reach any object before the event horizon does?

3. No object can ever be observed reaching an event horizon from the perspective of any external object because if that where possible then you could observe objects crossing the horizon as you approach it and they would have to then cross back from the inside if you accelerate away. If no object closer the the horizon can reach it before you do then all the objects that ever reach the horizon would have to do it at exactly the same time. Traffic jam!

4. If a free-falling object can cross an event horizon then what happens if it's attached by a rope to an object outside the horizon that then accelerates away? From the external objects perspective it's always possible to pull the other object away because it can never reach the horizon, but from the perspective of the object inside the horizon it can't be pulled away. Paradox!

5. A singularity is a singular point in time as well as space so it doesn't last for any length of time. Its length in time and space get extended by the same amount as the observers distance increases, making it appear to occupy more space-time the further away it's viewed from (again as an inverse square) making it a perfect four dimensional sphere (hypersphere). In the standard model it's cone shaped in four dimensions. Why would it be cone shaped when space and time are equivalent?

6. As you approach a 'black hole' it gets more length contracted and time dilated the closer you get because of the increased gravitation. If an object were able to reach the event horizon then it would be moving at the speed of light relative to the singularity, so the event horizon would be infinitely length contracted and time dilated. A 'black hole' is just what a singularity looks like from a distance!

7. When an objects accelerates using energy there's what's called a Rindler horizon behind it that gets closer to it if it increases its acceleration and further away from it if it decreases its acceleration. No information from beyond this horizon can ever catch up to the accelerating object as long as carries on accelerating at at least the same rate. It approaches at a slower rate in response to the same increase in acceleration the harder the object is accelerating, in exactly the same way that length contraction and time dilation make an objects relative velocity increase at slower rate response to the same amount of acceleration the faster its relative velocity to keep it below the speed of light. Acceleration can be defined as velocity relative to energy. This prevents an accelerating objects Rindler horizon from ever catching up to it, which wouldn't make sense. A Rindler horizon is always exactly the same distance away from the accelerating object as the horizon of it's own light moving away in front of it (the speed of light is only constant for inertial objects, it doesn't apply when they accelerate). There's also a Rindler horizon behind free-falling objects which works in exactly the same way. If an object were able to reach an event horizon then it's own Rindler horizon would have to catch up to it and overtake it so that it's the same distance in front of the object as the event horizon is behind it. It makes no sense for the two horizons to cross over like this. Instead the event horizon works in exactly the same way that the speed of light horizon does for an object using energy to accelerate, because it's the same thing. They're perfectly equivalent.

 

[Nugatory]

This isn't a proof that black cannot exist, it is a proof that black holes don't work the way you think they do.

Most of these have already been discussed in previous threads here.

 

[Spin-Analyser]

Great. I've had a look round here but haven't found answers to these. If you could explain what it is I'm misunderstanding and/or link to the thread/s that deal with these issues I'd appreciate it because I've never heard a self consistent description of a black hole.

 

[D H]

Thread locked pending moderation.

 

[sardar]

I must point out that this is not a logical proof that black holes cannot exist. While the author raises some interesting points and potential contradictions, it is important to remember that our understanding of black holes is based on mathematical models and theories that have been extensively tested and validated through observations and experiments. These models and theories may evolve and change as we continue to learn more about the universe, but they are currently the best explanation we have for the existence and behavior of black holes.

Additionally, the author's argument relies heavily on the concept of singularities, which are still not fully understood and may not even exist in reality. It is also important to note that our understanding of gravity is limited, and there may be other factors at play that could explain the behavior of objects near a black hole.

In summary, while the author presents some interesting ideas, it is not a logical proof that black holes cannot exist. As scientists, we must continue to gather evidence and refine our theories to better understand the mysteries of the universe, including the existence of black holes.