Re: Black hole questions
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:02:10 -0700
Dear sal:
"sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.23.03.01.59.538035@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:12:19 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)....
wrote:
Dear sal:
"sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.22.20.50.15.364154@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
No it does not. It takes infinite (Schwarzschild) time
for anything, including light, to reach the event horizon.
Nonsense.
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html
... "finite proper time"
Not nonsense, and your reference doesn't contradict
me. I said "infinite (Schwarzschild) time". I didn't say
"infinite proper time".
The proper time *is* evaluated in Schwarzchild coordinates. What
you don't say, but leave as an exercise for the OP, is that you
really mean:
It takes infinite (Schwarzschild) time
for anything, including light, to [be seen to] reach
the event horizon.
.... which requires light to climb back from the event horizon.
Your statement unmodified clearly states that the object *never
reaches the horizon*. When in fact it is the outside observer
that never sees it reach the horizon. It is a really big
difference.
....
This isn't rocket science. Wait, maybe it is? ;>)
Only if we get much, much better rockets than
what we've got now!
Amen to that one.
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Black hole questions
- From: sal
- Re: Black hole questions
- References:
- Black hole questions
- From: Wai Yu Wong
- Re: Black hole questions
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Black hole questions
- From: sal
- Re: Black hole questions
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Black hole questions
- From: sal
- Black hole questions
- Prev by Date: Re: symmetric twins paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Hi Folks, Pmb is back! :)
- Previous by thread: Re: Black hole questions
- Next by thread: Re: Black hole questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
