Recent content by MihaiM

twofish-quant, MOND is not nailed, I don't understand why you try so hard to play it down - I interpret that as an irrational rejection of uncertainty, craving for simplicity and closure. But: - MOND is not limited to the galaxy rotation curves. In its current shape, it was applied to more than...

What do you mean by this: for how long should it remain stable, until it develops its spiral arms, or further than that? In case you want to make it stable indefinitely, I think you should use some tricks, the most common is to add a massive halo of invisible particles to it.

Like soothsayer said, the time does not stop at the EH; for that it would have required infinite gravity - and infinite escape velocity - which is not the case, it's only the gravity of the escape velocity of c.

But that is a misunderstanding. The event horizon forms before the singularity, though matter actually falls in even after that moment, and actually very quickly, only the light it emits for an observer outside makes it appear it stops at the event horizon. Think of a vacuum cleaner...

Yeah, cool, thank you Chronos! Minutes before I found an answer on a different thread that ringed the bell: Edit: basically the same thing you said.

Is this always the case, that the radius of the body is necessarily zero? (after its collapse ends, of course) Intuitively yes, just there's always a catch. :)

The gravity is given by the mass of the gravitational body and the distance between the point you measure and its point-mass (the point in its centre), as you know. (and G, but this is besides the point) More precisely, directly proportional with the former and inversely proportional with the...

Reaching c or not is irrelevant, that acceleration used for a shorter period of time, can reach 1 m/s and stop as well. However, a greater acceleration than the one that *would* accelerate something to c in t_p (Planck time) is implausible, isn't it?

Can't the same thing be said about the maximum speed, c? Strictly speaking about acceleration and SR, I'm asking the same question again: isn't there a requirement for a theoretical maximum limit of acceleration? There is an intuitive contradiction between acknowledging c, l_p and t_p, but no...

Damn! You are right that my equations were wrong based on my notations, however I prefer to stick to mine (even if they don't respect established conventions or yours) in order to accommodate RiddlerA's definition: I corrected the equations in my post. Now it is ok, based on the notations I...

RiddlerA, the way you defined the times... ... it means your formula is incorrect, like the other guys said. Your t is the proper time (which someone in the rocket measures), while your to is the coordinate time (which someone on Earth measures, the observer, "us"). I think it is important...