On 11/6/2019 9:00 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



    On 11/6/2019 4:44 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


    On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:46:54 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



        On 11/6/2019 12:05 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:


        On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:23:58 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:



            On 11/5/2019 9:09 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

                Crossing the horizon is a nonevent for the most
                part. If you try to accelerate so you hover just
                above it the time dilation and that you are in an
                extreme Rindler wedge will mean you are subjected
                to a torrent of radiation. In principle a probe
                could accelerate to 10^{53}m/s^2 and hover a Planck
                unit distance above the horizon. You would be at
                the stretched horizon. This would be almost a sort
                of singular event. On the other hand if you fall on
                an inertial frame inwards there is nothing unusual
                at the horizon.

                LC


            Do you mean that clock rates continue to slow as an
            observer approaches the event horizon; then the clock
            stops when crossing, or on the event horizon; and after
            crossing the clock resumes its forward rate? AG

            He means the infalling clock doesn't slow down at all.  
            Whenever you see the word "clock" in a discussion of
            relativity it refers to an /*ideal clock*/.  It runs
            perfectly and never speeds up or slows down.  It's
            called /*relativity*/ theory because observers /*moving
            relative*/ to the clock /*measure it*/ to run slower or
            faster than their (ideal) clock.

            Brent


        I see. So if for the infalling observer, his clock seems to
        be running "normally", but for some stationary observer, say
        above the event horizon, the infalling clock appears to
        running progressively slower as it falls below the EH, even
        if it can't be observed or measured. According to GR, is
        there any depth below the event horizon where the infalling
        clock theoretically stops?

        I just explained that */clocks never slow/* in relativity
        examples.  So now you ask if there's a place they stop??

        Brent


    I know, but that's not what I asked. Again, the infalling clock
    is measured as running slower than a stationary clock above the
    EH. As the infalling clock goes deeper into the BH, won't its
    theoretical rate continue to decrease as compared to the
    reference clock above the EH? How slow can it get? AG

    It /*appears*/ (if the observer at infinity could see the extreme
    red shift) to /*asymptotically approach stopped */as it approaches
    the event horizon. This is because the photons take longer and
    longer to climb out because they have to traverse more and more
    spacetime.

    Brent


I'm referring to two clocks; one at finite distance above the EH, and other infalling. Doesn't the infalling clock seem to run progressively slower from the POV of the other clock, as it falls lower and lower? AG

I appears to run slower as seen by the distant observer.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab4bf81e-6d22-67ac-4592-3792d56fc01e%40verizon.net.

Reply via email to