On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:41:11 AM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 11/6/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> It doesn't appear at all when it passes the event horizon. It appears to
> stop as it approaches the event horizon.
>
> Brent
>
I know it can't be observed as it falls through the EH. That's why I
referred to clock "readings" after falling through as "theoretical". On the
other hand, LC says falling through the EH is a non-event, as if the
infalling clock behaves as we expect based on a clock entering a region of
strong gravitational field. But let's say the clock appears to stop as it
approaches the EH, which is what I thought. How do you reconcile this
prediction, which is certainly weird? 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/588f7501-ed61-4326-9379-cfa2b9c28dc7%40googlegroups.com.
