Recent content by Logan5

Please see my #67 post. What I meant is that Wheeler/Thorne/Misner meant. They construct a physically significant machine including elements which stay at (r,theta,phi) = const (so, hovering). The "proper time along the hovering observer's worldline" is the Minkowski (Schwarzschild) time...

I let Wheeler/Thorne/Misner, in "Gravitation", p. 596 decides. Let me quote this I agree this is a convention (very close to Einstein synchronisation of clocks in SR), but this convention gives a physical meaning to Minkowski (or Schwarzschild) time. Note I don't write "gives THE physical...

If universe/time cease to exists while the object approaches horizon, I can perfectly understand and accept this. There is by the way a big simultaneity challenge here : we have seen that simultaneity is relative, even conventional, in relativity. But if universe/time cease to exists "at once"...

I think the Minkowski time does have a physical significance : it is the proper and physical time of observers hovering at fixed distance of the BH (isn't it ?). I have never understood statements which states that it is "just a number" (or, in this case, all times coordinates are "just a...

I tend to agree with this sentence, and it is the reason why I believe the answer is 3., not 2. Because, in this case, how can a "region of spacetime that can never be in the past light cone of any event outside it" can have a causal influence on a signal dected remotely, and give "evidences"...

This is the very crux of the problem. In fact, I am not interested by a Minkowski time at which I can tell "the object IS in the BH". And I know (and understand) simultaneity is conventional even in simple SR cases, and even more in extreme GR cases ! I am interested by an evidence which can...

I never read somebody who stated that as clearly as that (thank you !). And your statement made me reconsider this kruskal szekeres diagram of a fall ...

We have a misunderstanding here. The object which fall does not "hover" : it follow a geodesic of course (free fall). If the object was hovering, or does not follow a geodesic, I agree the GW signal should be a different pattern. But this is not the case. In the "frozen star" model, objects who...

Thank you very much. I now understand better what you, and probably Peter, meant. As far as I can understand this document, and your answer in post #22, these elements gives me this information (which is new for me) : GW peak signal does NOT witness horizon crossing, but horizon approaching...

Very unfortunate, indeed ! I have a quest for this formula for years now, but I have not been able to find it, or even to find the theoretical background to justify it. There is something strange here. I will worship your name for ever if you can give me a link or a book title where I can find...

I agree. It was the observation I made in post #31.

I agree, I know that, and it is the reason why I formulated the problem in post 1 (or tried to) in a way which avoids this kind of formulation and time comparison in 2 different referentials. Anyway your summary is very clear and push again in my mind these important concepts.

I like this answer, but, as I asked to Jim (alas without answer), can you show me a source which gives a formula to compute a finite T3, and how this formula is found ? If your answer is true, it is very precious for me and my understanding. Also, this answer seems contradictory with other...

But a deformation is not locally detectable (or significant) either. A deformation is a global artefact, which extends in space and time. If we consider a single point, there is no deformation. So this is not incompatible ? GW emission is a global phenomenon not a local one. And how to...

Because this source http://kipac.stanford.edu/kipac/black-holes-eating-stars-and-making-waves (and numerous others) seems to say so, and also Jim Graber in this thread. And because crossing EH is a major "hair" (hair are deformation of the horizon, aren't they ?) that should be shaved with a...