On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:20:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/7/2019 4:06 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> 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".
>
>
> Well it doesn't make much sense to call observations theoretical when it's
> the theory that says they can't be observed.
>
> 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
>
>
> Reconcile it with what? It's a consequence of the metric which is derived
> from Einstein's equations. It's not as if it's some unexplained
> observation. It's not an observation at all. It's a theoretical
> prediction.
>
> Brent
>
You don't see a problem with a theory that predicts a clock which stops as
seen by an outside observer, when the observer using the clock, which
measures proper time, must see it moving forward? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6fcb7139-70e2-44c2-9be4-6eb7a09facd8%40googlegroups.com.
