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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6fcb7139-70e2-44c2-9be4-6eb7a09facd8%40googlegroups.com.
