Thanks, I think based on your last explanation I'm starting to see the error in my thinking. I was too caught up in the infinitesimal. It also occurred to me that the object could, for example, not fully release the gas and would still ultimately accelerate towards the BH.
"You need to put in a lot of effort and learn som geometry and general relativity"
You're right, that's why. When I asked the question, I was hoping that maybe there was an easy way to think of it. Now I know that's not the case.
That's exactly what's paradoxical about it for me. It must be as you say - but I don't understand the mechanism of how, on the one hand, almost everything is curved in such a way that it appears to be slowing down, while only one special case is shown to be accelerating through the same...
This is exactly where my imagination fails. Given two objects that both slow down, it is clear that the slower one will always lag behind the faster one under the circumstances described. But why an object whose observed speed tends to zero will visually continue to slow down, whereas an object...
In order to understand your answers better myself, I would like to clarify my original question by presenting it as a process:
1. A fairly uneducated and long-lived observer who is at rest with respect to a distant Black Hole (=hovering), sees an object that seems to be accelerating (due to...
I understand the idea behind your question. But if you get a random person to look through a telescope without all the knowledge you have, they will still describe something. A random person is likely to ignore the visual meaning of the redshift and focus only on the observed motion that they...
Thanks for all of your detailed answers. It seems to be all about the amount of redshift, which I misjudged completely.
If an observer with a telescope looks at the situation - will they actually see a slowing down of falling objects, regardless of the redshift?
Thanks for the insight and I am aware of what you say. You imply in your answer that I want to draw some important conclusions from the distant observer's visual data. That's not the case - this data is just one piece of the puzzle that interests me.
To express myself more clearly:
The hover should not be at a large distance from the BH, but rather where falling objects are already observed to slow down.
So the object will still accelerate after the hovering, reach a certain speed in the eyes of the observer, and then slow down again?
Thank you and yes, i mean the POV of a distant observer.
So how is it possible that an observable acceleration initially occurs? This is difficult to imagine as it should be tending to zero the moment it occurs - shouldn't there be only infinitesimal progress after the hovering?
"so the observed rate must rise and then fall"
Thank you - but that is a very mathematical description. What does this mean for the observer, what is he going to see? Is he going to observe the object approaching the event horizon, or not?
First of all, I wish everyone a Happy New Year.
I am interested in your expertise on a special constellation, which I will first briefly describe.
If you observe an object that is approaching the event horizon of a black hole, it is said that at some point the distant observer will have the...