Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Black Holes And Cosmology

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by nåte/">nåte on May 27, 1999 03:53:13 UTC

: : real quick cuz i'm off to bed, but I had to respond : : cuz I am just as intrigued by this phenomenon as : : you seem to be...

: : All I will mention are some thoughts; due to time : : limitations...

: : remember that there is ideally no "area" beyond : : an EH. we only use the term to idealize the blackholes : : nature. In reality the EH is the singularity. Because : : at THE event horizon would be a state of spacetime infalling : : AT the speed of light (which is impossible).

: : Likewise, as one fell into a blackhole because of : : exponential time dilation, the blackhole would likely : : exponentially radiate its mass away with respect : : to how far you get from the "EH". Thus, the blackhole : : would "approach" extinction before you could ever : : "ideally reach" the singularity/EH.

: : I may have ssounded half cracked, but i'm tired and : : late to bed! wife calls!! : )

: : Godbless

: : -Nate

: Dear Nate: : Are you saying that the solution for black holes from General Relativity is incorrect for it clearly has a solution within the event horizon?

Dear Yanniru,

The solution for a black hole in General Relativity is that of potential infinity. One will never reach the singularity, nor would time cease inside a BH from an internal FOR. The solution for the gravity well is infinite, however potential (not actual). A black hole does not possess properties that would distinguish its existence outside space-time.

I remember Einstein had a problem with this as well. He found it paradoxical that a star should collapse "beyond" the Schwarzchild radii, due to relativistic affects.

I find that the EH has no real actual boundary, that exists because where one defines a boundary from an outside FOR, one can introduce a new, smaller boundary within the BH (with a new internal FOR). And, if one were to establish a boundary where space is infalling "at" the speed of light, this again proposes a paradox. It never does infall "at" the speed of light, it gets infinitely close... So the dilemma continues; It would seem that an event horizon would be defined as such if and when space were infalling "at" the speed of light, if you can convince me of this I will then believe in a definable boundary.

Fun, isn't it? : )


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins