It seems as if there is no flexability to any questions I have asked. Lameness example I say in the example I am submerged in water that is so dense that I would be dead just by being there. I want to measure how much resistance this water would create for my arm. Instead of saying something like fluid resistance uses this equation *****+***=resistance. I get you could never be there to try and move your arm. theory is all I am useing if I say the question wrong than the answer would be what you think I am asking and possible examples or not saying it could never happen. I believe nobody can ever stand at the center of a star but I can imagine that happening for the point of referring to energy escaping the star as you watch it from inside the star.. if I am out of line I guess I will just discontinue posting my questions.

Edit: I retract as Anna v has given a very awesome answer in a way that takes the question at face value. Very impressed as I have jumped to conclusions not only in my theories but as to the imagination of possible responders

The path to a theory of everything closed for being too broad in scope. All I wanted was enough chat to merit opening an actual discussion. The dimpliest form of my question would be

What technologies and advances in current mathematical theory will be necessary to predict quantum probability with 100% Certainty.


Since without 20 rep I can not open a proper discussion in chat I was forced to pose my Discussion as a question as I learned it was much harder than I thought.


I'm not sure if this is what you're asking about, but there is a provision in our FAQ that says

Some kinds of questions should not be asked here:

  • Questions about fictional physics
    "Could warp drive get you out of a black hole?"
    Questions about physics of fictional worlds which are not sufficiently grounded in real physics are off topic here, but they may be on topic at Science Fiction & Fantasy.

Basically, any question which is based on an impossible or nonsensical premise will probably not be well received here, because if the setup is forbidden by the laws of physics, then you can't use physics to answer the question.

  • $\begingroup$ If I may about black hole an observer sees the person falling in time freeze but physics says the Peron falling in continues falling so being onside a black hole(besides being smeared or crushed or frozen in time to the observer) is completely possible. $\endgroup$ – Argus May 8 '12 at 6:15
  • $\begingroup$ Are you talking about a specific example? In that case, it would help if you edit a link to it into your question. $\endgroup$ – David Z May 8 '12 at 6:17
  • $\begingroup$ physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27976/… $\endgroup$ – Argus May 8 '12 at 6:20
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is that you are imagining standing in the center of a black hole, and you don't understand that the inversion of space and time makes it impossible to imagine yourself standing there--- it isn't a place. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 6:21
  • $\begingroup$ Well if it has effect on objects around it ie bending light then it has gravity and has mass and any object with mass is tangible. To me this seems like splitting hairs one person says it is a point were time stops or runs to infinity so if you wait there long enough for example infinite time plus one second you will see the entire life of the blackhole formation all matter falling through event horizon all at once $\endgroup$ – Argus May 8 '12 at 6:25
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Argus:It is not splitting hairs! You are imagining standing still at a certain radial position, and this is like imagining standing still at five minutes ago! It makes no sense, even in principle. You can't stand still along a time direction. You can't propagate sound in a time direction, sound propagates in time across space, not across time. Your question turns into nonsense for this reason, and there is no way to answer it. It's not a failure of others' imagination. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 6:26
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is that the question is asked about an object when imagining its properties to be vastly different from what they really are. This makes the language next to impossible to interpret. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 6:29
  • $\begingroup$ I am moving through space typing these keys and when I finish time has passed I am saying I do not move to type the keys I state still but time continues no matter where I am physically standing. If I can normally progress through time in space when space and time combine in the black hole I can move through time without physically moveing through space. OK sorry I had to say that but you are absolutely correct in both instances I will do alot more research into singularitys and their effects on space and time $\endgroup$ – Argus May 8 '12 at 6:52
  • $\begingroup$ Not a place does this mean I can not use the distortion created on one side relative to the distortion created on the other in a I am between a rock and a hard place relationship? Or is the idea just foolish conjecture? $\endgroup$ – Argus May 10 '12 at 4:12

Your question about standing at the center of a black hole misunderstands the nature of space and time inside a black hole. The problem is not that our imagination is lacking in not being able to imagine you standing there, it is that your imagination does not allow for the center of the black hole to be so different from the exterior that the radial direction is the direction of time.

If you are standing near r=0, you would be straddling different values of r in your imagination, say you stick your left leg out along r, this is like saying "what if I kick my left leg into yesterday, and kick you yesterday in the shin. This is not possible--- you don't move in time directions, you move in spatial directions.

This failure of imagination is what leads you to believe that your questions are not getting a fair answer--- you are missing something fundamental, that in the interior of the black hole the radial direction is timelike.

  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunatelly I am still not explaining myself fully OK how about I fell toward a black hole then you from outside see me freeze in time. Me being there am basically smeared or put into orbit of the singularitythen you sound a horn toward were I started falling as the sound wave approaches me it would interact with the infinate amount of stuff smeared does that allow the sound to increase speed or does the sound have to obey whatever speed the rotation of the black hole creates $\endgroup$ – Argus May 8 '12 at 6:30
  • $\begingroup$ Y'know, this really isn't the place to be discussing the original physics question itself... $\endgroup$ – David Z May 8 '12 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Argus: You are now asking something completely different. You aren't in "orbit" around the singularity in this case, you are smeared out. The "sound wave" doesn't propagate in vacuum, so you need air falling into the black hole. The sound would fall in with the air, and it wouldn't ever increase speed relative to the air, but the air would accelerate as it fell in, but it wouldn't ever reach you. This is a different question than "standing at the singularity", and it is not correct that you "didn't explain yourself fully." You did explain yourself fully, you were just saying nonsense. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ If there is a better place as you can clearly see I am not trying to say well if I shoot my phaser at a black hole I am asking theses questions in all honesty and sincerity $\endgroup$ – Argus May 8 '12 at 6:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Argus: David means that you should ask this on the comments of the original question, not in meta. But it's better for you to do a review of the literature on this stuff before asking more things about black holes--- you need to know the rudiments of these before your have a clear enough mental picture to ask a clear question. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 6:35
  • $\begingroup$ OK thank you for takeing the time to explain. Would "how long will time last" be a valid question $\endgroup$ – Argus May 8 '12 at 6:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Argus: Yes, that's valid, although it might be duplicated already. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 15:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Argus If you are interested in black holes, you could watch from Lenny Susskind this cosmology course followed by the lectures 2,3,4 and 5 of this series. Dont get irritated by the title of the second course, it is a misnomer and should rather be called "Cosmology 2" ... ;-) $\endgroup$ – Dilaton May 8 '12 at 20:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .