Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Black Holes, for Eta Carinae
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 2 of 53 (80456)
01-24-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mike Holland
01-24-2004 1:14 AM


Mike Holland writes:
So I conclude that matter can only enter a black hole by leaving our universe - at the far end of time. This means that no matter has ever fallen into a black hole according to our time frame. It is all frozen on the edge of the event horizon waiting for our clocks to tick over to infinity.
This is very well stated. I've wondered the same thing.
I wonder if it's that the matter approaches the black hole, but never enters it from our perspective, so even though at the end of time the matter might end up at the center of the black hole, at present all the matter of all black holes in the universe actually exists at their event horizons. Gravitationally we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 1:14 AM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 10:50 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 12 of 53 (80671)
01-25-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mike Holland
01-24-2004 10:50 PM


Secondly, there is an APPARENT time dilatation seen by the distant observer caused by the time taken for light emitted by the falling object to reach him. This is in addition to the ACTUAL time dilatation caused by the gravitational field near the event horizon. So these two effects need to be added together to account for the observations of the distant observer.
When only distance is a factor then I think you mean time latency, and this need not be considered. But if you're actually thinking of the Hubble effect where increasing distance usually means increasing speed of separation, then there is certainly a time dilation effect that must be included.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mike Holland, posted 01-24-2004 10:50 PM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mike Holland, posted 01-26-2004 2:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 15 of 53 (80841)
01-26-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mike Holland
01-26-2004 2:05 AM


I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the way you've expressed it makes it seem like you're assuming that light has a different velocity in a gravitational field. I think you probably intended to say that given an observer stationary relative to the black hole that both gravity and relative velocity contribute to time dilation. If so then we agree, but wouldn't the velocity of matter at the event horizon relative to the black hole be zero?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mike Holland, posted 01-26-2004 2:05 AM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mike Holland, posted 01-27-2004 11:43 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024