On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 11:20:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
As it goes deeper and deeper into the BH, does the clock ever appear to
STOP? AG
--
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/c9b779c2-ad62-4b06-877c-5b1ead4d304a%40googlegroups.com.
