I disagree with this! [snip] > If it becomes red shifted by definition it has less energy. Since > the photon looses energy as it travels through the region from the > edge of the black hole toward our observation point, that energy > must be stored within this space.[/snip]
Equivalent velocity is a function of the environment, ie a gravity well or warp in space time, the velocity of the object is unchanged locally whether we discuss our "equivalent acceleration" of 9.8m/s^2 or a near luminal equivalent acceleration approaching an event horizon. In both cases the acceleration still dilates space-time in the Pythagorean relationship of V^2/C^2 such that it is almost negligible until you reach large fractions of C. The photon is always traveling at C from it's local perspective - A Lorentzian perspective would say the ether always intersects our 3d plane at the same local rate "C" and that time dilation and Lorentzian contraction is natures way of dealing with the inconsistency. It would be nice to compare it to an aircraft with a head wind or tail wind with one extraordinary difference.. the "rate" of the head or tail wind redefines our time quanta proportionally. My whole point here is that gravity doesn't steal energy to red shift a photon.. the photon is locally still traveling at the same speed but a gravity well subtracts and a gravity warp adds "equivalent" velocity to that number which will dissipate just like the head or tail wind relative to an aircraft. The "less energy" you refer to is relative, a calculated number that becomes meaningless when both observer and observed occupy the same frame. IMHO Fran -----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:21 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon At 10:16 PM 12/27/2012, David Roberson wrote: > >>That energy leaving the massive star becomes trapped within the > >>space surrounding it to a significant degree; how is this possible > >>unless space itself has expanded to accommodate it? > > >No, the energy is not trapped. Light continues to travel at the > speed of light. > >Actually Abd, a photon has a finite amount of energy that is >directly proportional to its frequency. Yes. > If it becomes red shifted by definition it has less energy. Since > the photon looses energy as it travels through the region from the > edge of the black hole toward our observation point, that energy > must be stored within this space. The energy is stored in the gravitational system. It is potential energy. When a body falls toward the earth, its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. When the body is shot from the earth, and it is deaccelerated by gravity, its kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. We don't normally think of light this way. However that seems to me to be what happens. If the light were reflected back to the black hole, returning along the same path, it would regain the energy it lost. Potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy. >We could collect each photon with a detector after it leaved the >vicinity of the black hole and we would find that it is less >energetic. So no, it does not continue forever at the same energy. That's correct. But it continues forever, unless it is obstructed. And it continues at the same velocity. It does not slow down (in a vacuum, anyway). > >Then the photon will continue to infinity. I thought that your idea > >was supposed to be a way to communicate information from within the > >event horizon to outside, by positing a ship that is outside of our > >horizon, but sees an event horizon closer, and the second ship is > >within our horizon -- we can't communicate with it -- but outside of > >the first ship's horizon. > >One thing at a time Abd. The main plan is to communicate if >possible, but this explains part of the problem and why it >happens. Every once in a while it makes sense to look at the overall system. > > >It's like any photon. It travels until it reaches the end of time. > >I.e., forever, and a day. Its energy remains intact, but because of > >the red-shift, the energy is spread out more. > >No. If the photon becomes red shifted, energy is lost from that >photon. If the red shift is total down to zero, no energy remains. If the photon is beyond the event horizon, heading outward, it is never red shifted to "zero." (I was incorrect about energy, though. Energy is lost in climbing the gravitational well, stored as potential energy from gravity.) > >What do we have in terms of observation of black holes? > >Sorry if it sounded like I had observations of them. I was just >asking if others might as I do not. I didn't think that. > >It has to be. However, I don't know that any such object has been > >observed. All the spectral lines would be shifted. We might conclude > >that the object is a a great distance, and the only way we'd know > >that it wasn't would be if we could detect graviational effects other > >than red shift. > >This is a good question for the astronomers. Perhaps they are >seeing these things and are not aware of it. It is hard to imagine >that there are not a large number of these out there unless they >tend to explode before reaching this size range. > >It might not be a bad idea for the astronomers to take a second look >at what is referred to as failed stars or other unusual thermal objects. I doubt they would miss this. But maybe.
