Brent, I don't think my statement is confused. Your response is ambiguous because it doesn't specify frames of reference correctly.
The object's clock DOES tick slower according to the external observer's clock, but obviously not by the object's OWN comoving clock. It is of course ACTUALLY objectively ticking slower because it is falling into a gravity well which is an absolute, not a relative phenomenon. Contrary to what you said, the object's comoving clock DOES actually 'physically' (your words) tick slower. it's just that the infalling clock can't measure its own slowing... Obviously one can't tell how fast a clock is ticking by comparing the clock to itself. That's proper time which always appears to tick at the same rate, but ONLY because all comoving processes tick in synch. Proper time does NOT measure an actual gravitational time dilation, or any time dilation for that matter. The infalling observer has an ABSOLUTE slowing of its clock due to increasing gravitation but just cannot locally measure that slowing. Thus in the infalling observer's experience as his clock slows he will never actually reach the event horizon because his clock comes to a complete ACTUAL PHYSICAL stop at that point. What happens inside the black hole is up for grabs... Edgar On Monday, January 27, 2014 12:08:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/26/2014 8:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > PS: A slight correction to one sentence in my post below. The rest is > good .... > > > > My sentence "By the time they (the falling objects) are actually beyond > the event > > horizon they are long gone from view." is ambiguous because it doesn't > specify whose > > clock time is being referenced. It should be possible for the object to > have already > > crossed the event horizon in the frame of the event horizon and there > still be a faint > > image of the object still outside the event horizon on its way back to > the external > > observer, not to mention the traversal time of the light going all the > way back to that > > external observer... > > > > > > Second Brent's statement "..as they red shift towards invisibility" is > misleading. The > > fading from view is not due to a red shift towards invisibility (though > a red shift is > > occurring). The red shift is due to the object's increasing velocity > deeper into the > > gravitational well (which slows the object's comoving clock thus > reducing the frequency > > of the light it emits), > > That's confused. The object's clock, assuming it carries one, doesn't > tick slower along > its world line. Physical, i.e. clock, time doesn't "tick" at different > rates, it's just > that path lengths may be different between the same two events and the > interval between > signals received by distant observers depends on the signal paths. > > > while the fading is due to fewer photons per unit time reaching the > external observer. > > That's true; there is both red shift and apparent slower emission but they > are the same > phenomena. I've never seen it analyzed but there is also the possibility > of seeing the > object by scattered light (which is the way we see most things). Outside > the event > horizon at 3M is the photosphere where photons are caught in circular > orbits. I think > they are unstable, so they wouldn't collect there, but there might be a > lot between 2M and > 3M that are falling in, depending on the nearby illumination sources (e.g. > another star). > So there might be a lot of photons reflected off an object as it falls in. > > Brent > -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
