How to survive in a black hole
Once beyond the event horizon, what should you do?
So there you are: you discover that your spaceship has inadvertently slipped across the event horizon of a black hole, and now there's no escape from being squeezed to oblivion by gravity. The only question is how you can maximize the time you have left. What do you do?
Comments
Could the illustration of the black hole be described as a 'reverse' spindle or horn torus?
Spindle Torus
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpindleTorus.html
Horn Torus
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HornTorus.html
Posted by: Doug | May 19, 2007 05:27 PM
Question? Would you as the traveler crossing the event horizon see the the rest of the universe speed up as your time line slowed down eventually to zero, thus the rest of the universe would flash past you in an instant. Or, would you see the rest of the universe slow down, as viewed from your point of view and eventually stop. Which point if either would be valid?
Posted by: Daryl | May 21, 2007 02:59 AM
If you think about it , u essentially can escape a black hole first it would require a friendly ship connected to your's via Rope, Chain, Cables ...etc but what you would do is be sure to be well out of the gravitational pull of black hole and then while your ship is being pull by the gravity the friendly ship pulls you out , but i also begin to contradict myself but thinking that if the friendly ship is connected to your ship would it not suffer the same effects of the gravity? what if the friendly ship was also connect to many other ships would that decrease the total gravity being exerted on the other ships ?like a pulley system?
Posted by: offset | May 21, 2007 03:06 AM
If you think about it , u essentially can escape a black hole first it would require a friendly ship connected to your's via Rope, Chain, Cables ...etc but what you would do is be sure to be well out of the gravitational pull of black hole and then while your ship is being pull by the gravity the friendly ship pulls you out , but i also begin to contradict myself but thinking that if the friendly ship is connected to your ship would it not suffer the same effects of the gravity? what if the friendly ship was also connect to many other ships would that decrease the total gravity being exerted on the other ships ?like a pulley system?
Posted by: offset_Dan Albrecht | May 21, 2007 03:07 AM
At Near the speed of light, from the event horizon to the black holes surface, would pass instantly. How much time would you have musing about anything? Lights out Baby!
Posted by: Percy Z. Hammond | May 21, 2007 05:10 AM
friendly ship can't pull you out of black hole because it would need an infinity of energy- which it doesn't have. To be connected to friendly ship that is in black hole would be suicidal, because it would suck you up in black hole too.
If you would be in the black hole you wouldn't see universe slow down or accelerate, because the light in the black hole would travel with you to the core of black hole- you wouldn't see nothing because everything would be distorted
Posted by: jernej | May 21, 2007 02:24 PM
The actual answer is: as your rocket closes in on a black hole and you pass the event horizon, the speed of your ship speed accelerates to the speed of light, and time stretches out infinitely. The astronaut actually dies of old age before he is crushed.... Just a theory - I think we should test it....
Posted by: Gordon | May 21, 2007 08:18 PM
Applying Peter Lynds Time Theory, basically that time is but the interval between two events, would seem to remove much of the 'hokus spokus' from this subject, and many other?
Posted by: Elling Melle | May 21, 2007 10:33 PM
This sounds like the the geometry problem of approaching a line half way on each step-one could never reach it. With the same reasoning, it should be impossible to fall into a black hole. A tree by defintion grows outwards, regardless of its' proximity to its' roots-they really never cross path. I imagine there are million geometrical arrangements with this same feature, some that can circumvent this dilema. However, in my basic knowledge, nature always passes things to future, passes things forwards-time a measure of differences of distances and associated energies presented to our perceptions of the same, in a relationship of some kind(see references-links). In order then to enter or escape a black hole one must have a very near perfect forwards pass that is absolutely seductive to the restraining time and energy that might threaten capture. In these terms natureis just and only as we know it is-attractions, repulsions, affintities-inside and out-ad infinitum).
How then s the ecology of the world threatened-people fearing black holes-"I'll get a rope", or "it'll be so quick it wouldn't make a difference.
I think the answer to this is, in the realms of human history and events-maybe even current events-an illicit seduction of many-a violation of uniqueness-one to one correspondances-of adding persons(their observations together, beyond the abilities of one person-to cause self harm-others harm) (science is guilty of this , but I do not think the origin of the problem is in science; maybe in corruption, that could have an associated bad way of reflection associated with it that might have leaked into science thinking and/or general eduction from any direction ). In my assesment, corruptions and habits of past history, can surface in the form of chains, chain letters, (the) passing of forwards sexual/mental (all criminal in nature-in modern history )-amplified (by the means of their creation and concealment) to cause natural injuries accidents and disease,in order to disguise manipulate- that can violate nature, lead to fears of violated divideds. This western world which apparently has never gotten its' feet solidly grounded appears to be blind to such things. In the discourses of science, though between the old and the new, its'presence is difficult to resolve-to find a mutual comprenhension in meaning(or technical meaning)as science thought approaches theory to the unknown.
Who ever finds this phony seduction without its' real elements is potential prey from an unguarded means to distort.
We could find ourselves someday threatened with blackholes -if not today.
Marvin Eli Kirsh
http://www.marvinekirsh.com
http://www.authorsden.com/marvinelikirsh
http://cogprints.org/5500/
http://cogprints.org/5499/
http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2007/msg00015.html
http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2007/msg00019.html
http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2007/msg00021.html
http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2007/msg00024.html
Posted by: Marvin E. Kirsh | May 22, 2007 03:11 AM
Other errors(?):
1. Light, in terms of Newtonian mechanics is not attracted by mass, but "repelled" since its speed increases as it moves away. (Incidentally this gives a problem with ye old e = mc^2 bit, unless light has negative mass sometimes!)
So light can escape radially from a spherically symmetrical "black hole". 2. Light might be reflected at the alleged event horizon, so light entering from far could then escape on a symmetrical path (basic optics).
3. There is not necessarily a singularity at the centre. There is a minimum speed of light, zero. There is likely a maximum c times the square root of 2 (comes out of equation and making positron equal size to an electron). In that case the innards might be a set of nested shells, not proceeding to the center, but having a uniform density inside the innermost one. (Think about a black hole forming.)
4. Gravitation is very likely not due to an unproven "curvature" but is a side effect of electricity cause by the expansion of the universe (the electric field has to accelerate to keep up). This view gives a very precise value for G, namely by solving G from Newtonian gravitation and Coulomb law of electric force.
5. Ahem, eh, I like colour, so I don't want to go into a black hole.
6. No, I am not a "nut", the derivations (and supporting experiments) are given in my book "Glimpjes in het Donker" (Dutch language).
Posted by: Percy N. Kruythoff | May 22, 2007 07:47 PM
Just so people are clear:
Crossing the event horizon guarantees contact with the singularity in FINITE time. Outside observers may see the victim "slow down and fade" but from the victim's perspective there is NO CHANGE in perceived flow of time. But there is (sooner or later...where later is "hours" and sooner is "nanoseconds" depending on hole mass) a sharp, tearing sensation...
The "rope rescue" idea made me smile. Of course, the FORCE on the rope (and WORK done to pull on it even the tiniest bit) would be infinite. Unfortunately, that's way beyond the sheer strength even of the Unobtanium cable which I usually use for towing starships.
Posted by: Alistair Morley | May 22, 2007 11:18 PM
First of all I'd like to observe that:
1. "Falling into a black hole is a strange affair. Because the hole's gravity distorts space-time,..."
It's a myth. There's no space-time in nature. Space cannot be coupled with time, because its attribute is energy. Time is matter's attribute, as matter is in a constant motion and motion is time. Moreover, black holes don't distort neither alleged space-time nor space. Black holes have impact on matter only that is contained in space.
2. "...a far-off observer watching an object crossing the event horizon sees time for that object appear to slow down — a clock falling into a black hole would appear, from the outside, to tick ever slower. At the horizon itself, time stops, and the object stays frozen there for the remaining lifetime of the Universe."
This is rubbish. Slowing down a clock has nothing common with slowing down time! Nothing can slow down time as nothing can slow down motion. Time or motion is a result of speed of a body. Hence dilation of time is impossible. Time cannot stop. By the way time of what? Time does not exist spontaneously. It is not a body.
Deeprooted scientific myths are still keeping well.
Posted by: Andrzej Lechowski | May 23, 2007 12:01 AM
Turn ninety degrees to the spiral plane and fly out. that would be relative down so you would be going parallel to the hole's tail. Curve out as you can but avoid fighting as that will expend your fuel. The gravitational pull should decrease exponentially the further you go from the open end.
It isn't that difficult if you think about it.
Posted by: Boyd Miles | May 23, 2007 01:41 AM
Yesterday, I overlooked "what happens to the spacecraft". [First, in the "Lorentz Transformations" for gravity, it is not time, but clocks that slow (some, like the orbit of a planet, in fact may speed up, when the field is increased). And objects, not space, contract.]
Being made of the same stuff as light, in first approach the craft will either fly by with "refracted" trajectory; bounce back (conservative field stuf); or, if fast enough (unlikely), pass through the so-called horizon and then speed up again until it reaches c.2^1/2, where it will either bounce back or pass through and slow again. However the craft may have to contend with "meddlers" like radiation, fields, etc., that sap its kinetic energy. So then after "hitting" the horizon, it will probably bounce around till the curtain falls. [If this bouncing around makes you sick, chew some ginger, or chat with the chaps who bounce around space-craft, especially like in re-entry attempts.]
These views are based on a fluid dynamic model: an electric field behaves as if due to the flow of a frictionless fluid. Besides allowing one to make naughty comments about black holes; Einstein's relativity model; and some of quantum mechanics; it allows calculation of not only gravitational deflection of light, red shift, Coulomb law, (proton mass)/(electron mass) (bye-bye Higgs particle?); but also how fast the universe is expanding; why and how much the expansion is accelerating; and other goodies. But if one then also contradicts (followers of) Darwin; shows that creation by God is the only realistic option for getting this universe; and foolishly publishes one's book one's self, then one must be very naughty indeed. Hardly suitable company for any reputable "old boys" club.
Posted by: Percy N. Kruythoff | May 23, 2007 11:55 AM
The article states, "the event horizon of a black hole — the boundary beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape the hole's fearsome gravity."
As a VERY ignorant lay person, I have a question.
How does gravity escape?
Posted by: Brion Daugherty | May 23, 2007 01:01 PM
I have informed some where else .....this is actually "one-way ticket" boundary around a black hole from which nothing, not even light, can escape. No object except for a black hole can have an event horizon, so evidence for its existence offers resounding proof of black holes in space......
Posted by: engineering | May 23, 2007 09:30 PM
Actually, a person who will fall in a black hole will be dead long before he makes contact with the event horizon due to the massive difference in the force of gravity applied to various parts of his body which will rip him apart. Not the best way to die...
So if the study is about just a theoretical man who is invulnerable to tension forces, I agree that he can exist in the event horizon.
Posted by: Ioannis Bazianas | May 24, 2007 10:33 AM
Crossing the event horizon might be a non-event, depending on the size of the black hole. The tidal forces that eventually stretch you spaghetti-thin requires a large difference in the space-time curvature (or gravitational force, if you like) between your head and your feet, closer to the singularity than to the event horizon. The event horizon above you would, I think, look like a bright (extremely blue-shifted) sky overhead after you crossed it, due to gravitational lensing and energizing of all the light coming from the rest of the universe. (I may not have the geometry right on that) Everything else should be normal, at least at first. I think the mistake some of the other postings make is in not distinguishing between the observer and the observed in reference to special and general relativity. Time dilation occurs, but you wouldn't notice it in your own reference frame. I guess the good news is that black holes eventually "evaporate" (eventually like 10^67 years, give or take a month), so if you can develop some angular velocity and get your spaceship orbiting the singularity you might be able to wait it out.
Posted by: Tom Fahsbender | June 6, 2007 03:21 AM
Obviously, it would be impossible to see out of a black hole. You would have to teleport with Chuck Norris, duh.
Posted by: Morris | December 11, 2007 03:37 PM