Does time stop at the Event Horizon of a black hole?
From a Principia Scientific article from a couple of years ago, I realized there are cosmological concepts seemingly not contemplated by others. Therefore, this seems a good opportunity to raise discussion and invite thoughts on the question: Does time stop at the Event Horizon of a black hole?
It is widely accepted that inside the Accretion Disc of a black hole there is the Event Horizon; called the ‘Event Horizon’ because events are thought to cease here because we assume here is where time stops.
We further assume a black hole is a disc rotating at the speed of light, at that speed it is conceived time no longer exists because it shrinks to zero – together with space – in the direction of travel. All dimensions inside the Event Horizon would thus reasonably collapse into the zero dimension – a single point – a singularity.
According to theorists, if time no longer exists inside the Event Horizon, then matter cannot fall to the centre of a black hole. Can matter even exist if there is only a single point dimension?
Within this rationale, the space inside the Event Horizon should be a single point. If so, what are the implications of this?
Surely, if there is no time, then matter cannot travel to the presumed singularity at the centre of the black hole. If this is the case, then there can be no singularities at the centre of black holes.
To follow the logic, matter at the Event Horizon must be close to infinitely compressed in an incredibly thin shell that forms the Event Horizon. Here, time would barely tick, but it would not stop altogether. From that comes the inference that there is the next stage of matter in Neutron stars and the proposed Quark stars.
Do physicists hold religious-like beliefs akin to those they condemn in religious people?
To be consistent in this reasoning we may conclude time does not tick inside a black hole, and therefore matter has no time in which to travel anywhere. So why haven’t physicists worked this out? Am I overlooking something?
Astronomers have numerous observations of supermassive objects that have properties very much like an infinite mass black hole, but possibly not with a truly infinite mass. Bodies with the mass of billions of stars do lie at the centres of all galaxies because there are numerous observations of them – and the physics of galaxies suggests this is the case.
These supermassive objects have been well observed consuming billions of stars and emitting huge volumes of particles and energy from their poles that extend beyond the outskirts of their galaxy. But if these bodies have infinite mass, they should not be able to eject matter from their poles. When stars form, they too eject particles and energy from their poles when they form, but they do not have infinite mass.
These things tell us something is happening at the event horizon of so-called black holes that we do not yet understand. We need to resolve the paradox.
As far as I can see, the implications of time stopping at the Event Horizon has not been properly considered. Nor has a shell of presumably almost infinitely dense matter at the Event Horizon been considered.
So, are we missing something? I welcome your thoughts below and further discussion on this idea.
About the author: Gregg Thompson is an Australian entrepreneur, amateur astronomer and a founding member of the Southern Astronomical Society (SAS).
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gregg,,
There are no “black holes” because gravity is a function of the energy associated with mass, not mass.(How can mass produce both resistance to movement (inertia) and movement (gravity)?) Newton invented the gravitational constant to provide a source for his force. The data, Kepler’s law, only contains distance and energy (V^2).
There can be no event horizon because as an object approaches a mass and time slows the distance must increase so according to Einstein the closer you get to the mass the further you are from it.
Light is a wave and its speed changes with the strength of the magnetic and electric fields it travels in. This causes the path of light to bend creating interference. Astronomers discovered empty areas of space, which they found to be full of galaxies when they got m ore powerful telescopes.
There is no time. It is just means of comparing the energy (rate of change) of different objects using a common reference set, just as there is no meter, kilogram, no ounces, no gallons, etc..
The nonsense you see in physics is a result of trying to use reason when dealing with Einstein’s fantasy of a particle nature of light and a constant speed of light.
Herb
Reply
Peter Harris
| #
“…because gravity is a function of the energy associated with mass, not mass.”
Huh???
“The nonsense you see in physics is a result of trying to use reason when dealing with Einstein’s fantasy of a particle nature of light and a constant speed of light.”
Herb, last week you were equating yourself with Einstein, now you’re dismissing him?
Reply
Euge
| #
If light is not a particle, how do you explain the double slit experiment?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Euge,
Interference patterns are a result of waves. As a wave spreads the trenches will cancel the peaks of waves from another source in some areas and add to the peaks in other areas.Each slit in the experiment acts as a source producing the alternate bands of darkness and light. If light were a particle they would continue in a straight line not interfering with other particles.
Herb
Reply
karlitozulu
| #
the only paradox here is why are astrophysicists using dividing by zero (mathematical infinity) in their equations to prove anything…? you can prove god is dancing on its’ eyelashes while farting galaxies out of his ass with mathematical infinity 😛
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi, Karlitozulu,
Your comment appears to me to be quite correct even if also quite crude.
Gregg asks the question in large bold letters: “Do Physicists Hold Religious-Like Beliefs Akin To Those They Condemn In Religious People?” And then 3 brief paragraphs later he wrote: “These supermassive objects have been well observed consuming billions of stars and emitting huge volumes of particles and energy from their poles that extend beyond the outskirts of their galaxy.” Well observed?????
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Your ideas are almost exactly he same as mine on the subject. Have you been reading my book Gregg? “The Binary Universe” – A Theory of Time.
I agree scientists have been missing the fact that time stops on the EH. This is their root problem. They do not understand the true nature of time and they believe (religiously) that time must continue in whatever frame of reference you reside, even on the EH. Clearly this is ridiculous. But they get their “fun” from playing around with the math’ for objects passing through the horizon, an impossibility if time has stopped, since any event requires time to pass for it to occur.
My vision of a collapsing star is that the moment the EH forms, (before the formation of any “singularity at the center”), is that time stops at the EH first, (and I have this on good authority), so all collapsing movement must also cease at that moment. This means that the matter within the EH cannot collapse further and so there can never be a singularity at the center of any and all black holes.
But then, this doesn’t matter in the least to the rest of the universe (that’s us), because as we know, the gravitational effects outside the horizon are unaffected by however the mass is distributed within the EH. So we don’t actually care about some hypothetical infinite mass singularity at the center.
My view of time is that it must be a physical process. Everything in this universe is physical, so why should we speculate about anything beyond the physical. I conclude that the process of time, of change, is a physical process, and that this process must be going on everywhere in the universe at a rate dependent on your proximity to all gravitational field at your location. It must be a field, the field of time, or, at least a field of energy that dictates your time rate. It’s nature must be such that movement through the field produces time dilation in accordance with Lorentz. Only a wavelike field can do this.
When you think about light emitted from a star (but any light emitter will do), photons are emitted in great numbers (light intensity) followed by few in numbers, followed by great numbers,…….and so on, and we get the wave nature of light. This must mean that events through out the cosmos, (and at any light emitter), must pass faster then slower, then faster then,……. well, you get the picture. So, we must conclude that time is passing faster then slower,……….and so on. THIS IS OUR WAVELIKE TIME.
But then, I go on to deduce that time must also be quantum like, or quantised. It passes in increments of Planck times, steps.
I reconcile this with its wave nature and come up with a fundamental nature of time that agrees completely with special and general relativity but also answers many conundrums in present day physics.
So, I think we agree on singularities within black holes and that physicists still have not got the hang of the phenomenon of time. Have you noticed with the many articles presented on “the nature of time”, that not one of them ever comes up with a fundamental description of the phenomenon? I believe I have done so with my book, but I’m not holding my breath for recognition. That will happen after I am dead and gone, if someone doesn’t steal the idea first.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
If time stops (goes to zero) then distance must go to infinity squared. No time, no energy, no matter.
Herb
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Herb’,
General Relativity shows that time and space are interlinked, you can’t have one without the other. Slow the time rate and space shrinks, (it does not increase or expand). Zero time at the EH means that space has also shrunk to zero size, so we have a holographic “shell” of zero time and zero “height”.
The mathematics of GR is perfectly correct.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
If the speed of light (d/t) is constant then as time slows (gets longer) than distance must increase to keep the ratio constant. I think the problem is that time slowing means the length of time increasing, not decreasing.If you travel the same distance but take twice as long to get there you go slower.
Herb
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
No black holes? Is that in Chapter 3 of Herbphysics? Gravity is the bending of space/time – it is not a force or energy.
Ken Hughes
| #
You’ve got it fundamentally wrong. The speed of light is a constant whatever frame of reference you’re in. That’s what the statement means.
You really do need to educate yourself in relativity theory.
Her Rpse
| #
Hi Ken,
If the outside observer sees the object slowing down as it approaches the singularity then the time it takes to travel a unit of distance is increasing.
Herb
Robert Beatty
| #
Gregg,
“It is widely accepted that inside the Accretion Disc of a black hole there is the Event Horizon; called the ‘Event Horizon’ because events are thought to cease here because we assume here is where time stops.”
If the mass separates into its atomic components, then time for that mass must have stopped?
It is known that gravity fields are very strong, and there is a gravity limit above which the traditional molecule cannot survive.
IMO the Black Hole is one of the most interesting locations in space. See https://bosmin.com//PSL/NEGATRONS.pdf
Reply