According to the formula of time dilation in the gravity field of a non-rotaing black hole...

According to the formula of time dilation in the gravity field of a non-rotaing black hole, time stops when you get to the event horizon. But what happens when you get past that? does time get imagonary? If so, what does that even mean?
Is there any theory or hypothesis, that gives a good explanation?

Other urls found in this thread:

vixra.org/abs/1505.0131
xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Value
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Time appears to stop for you for any outside observer, you yourself would never be able to tell when you even passed the event horizon.

>black hole
No such thing.

tidal forces would rek literally anything that got close

You know how you can only move forward in time? OK. Think on that. It's weird, but focus on it. Really feel like you understand it, even if it is weird. You march through time inexorably on. You might move to the left and experience one future, or to the right and another, but time marches on. Maybe faster for you relative to someone else, but on.

Now you cross the event horizon, and space becomes "timelike". Which is to say, no matter how you move, you always move closer to the singularity.

if you "could" view the outside world then you would instantly see the end of the universe once you passed the event horizon.

Infinitely Complex Topology Changes with Quaternions and Torsion
vixra.org/abs/1505.0131

>vixra

Tidal forces depend on the size of the BH. The larger the mass, the smaller the gradient.
A really large hole, like the ones at the centers of galaxies, you could fall right through the event horizon and not feel a thing.

You might live as long as a few seconds (even a few hours in extreme cases) by your own clock before spaghettification.

Possible Flat Earther detected

I have a hunch I might want to fall into one and see, or should I say know...for science?

For an observer falling into a black hole, Schwarzschild coordinates are not a good choice since you have issues at the event horizon, when physically nothing interesting happens there. Observers on the outside cannot see within r_S, so they are useful for describing outside of r_S. As you get close to and within r_S, use Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates

well, when you do, be sure to tell us what happens

You'd have to be closer to the singularity for him to communicate to you...

This

Behaviour after the "singularity" would be undefined because we can't into mathematics

thanks like your explanation

...

...

what do you mean by "appears?"

I imagine gravity being linked everywhere in the universe. I imagine black holes as an energy funnel, funneling in energy from every spherical direction. Because there's more mass in certain regions of space, it'd create an imbalance, thus with more energy coming from one direction, it'd rotate. Can we really have non-rotating black holes?

That equation is what an observer at infinity would measure as the time lapse of an observer at [math]r

I meant to say [math] r > r_s[/math], because of course.

From the relationship, we have to imagine that your local space time scales and while it is technically not moving to your frame of reference you were never moving to begin with. I urge you to consider infinity as a "contradiction" when referred to in physics. That means there is an area not understood and ready to be improved upon. Give up the model and think a little bit more if possible.

No, it just means the problem was solved formally when the observer radius is much larger than the relevant radius: [math]r_o >> r > r_s[/math]. Then a formal expansion is done in the parameter [math]r_o[/math] and terms [math]r_o^{-1}[/math] and smaller were discarded.

xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/
---------------------------------
Hawking Radiation Calculator

G en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
c en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
ħ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Value
k en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
[math]
\begin{align*}
\text{Mass} && M \\
\text{Radius} && R &= M \cdot \frac{2G}{c^2} \\
\text{Surface area} && A &= M^2 \cdot \frac{16 \pi G^2}{c^4} \\
\text{Surface gravity} && \kappa &= \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{c^4}{4G} \\
\text{Surface tides} && d \kappa_R &= \frac{1}{M^2} \cdot \frac{c^6}{4G^2} \\
\text{Entropy} && S &= M^2 \cdot \frac{4 \pi G }{ \hbar c \; ln10} \\
\text{Temperature} && T &= \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{ \hbar c^3 }{8k \pi G} \\
\text{Luminosity} && L &= \frac{1}{M^2} \cdot \frac{ \hbar c^6}{15360 \pi G^2} \\
\text{Lifetime} && t &= M^3 \cdot \frac{5120 \pi G^2}{ \hbar c^4} \\
\end{align*}

[/math]