Recent content by Shaw

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Thank you. That's reasonable. Do we have any information about what happens to time inside the black hole since gravitation and time are bound together. At the event horizon, time dilation can't increase since it shares the light limit velocity. If gravitation is calculated from the centre, and...

Has anyone done this calculation? It seems to me that if light and time disappear at the event horizon, it's a gravitation limit as well.

Thanks for this. I take it that this means that while Birkhoff's Theorum states that all gravitational fields look the same, when a sense of scale is missing we can tell one field from another by dropping test masses from, say, a point where the gravitational force is 1% of its value at the...

A test object in a weak gravitational field will fall through the field to the Schwarzschild radius more slowly than a test object in a strong field, but an object in a strong field has further to fall. Intuitively, I think that it's a wash, and all appropriate test objects in all fields will...

Can we therefore conclude that the amount of time needed for a test object (suitable to the size of the object) to fall through a gravitational field will be the same? This may require reducing the object to its Schwarzschild radius.

In the absence of a sense of scale, will the gravitational fields of large objects be indistinguishable, one from the other?

Thanks, but your replies lack detail, so they're not helpful.

Is there theoretically a smallest possible Schwarzschild radius?

Thanks for the reminder. I'll run it past an advisor first for review. I'll only post it if he's happy with the math.

Many thanks for this expansion on your original explanations. I can't access authoritative explanations so quickly anywhere else. This is why I post on PhysicForums. I've reached a mathematically provable conclusion from all my previous posts, and I will present it shortly.

If we just consider SR, acceleration to the event horizon implies acceleration to the speed of light, but you've explained that it's the event horizon itself that's moving at the speed of light, so SR calculations don't apply here, therefore it can't be taken" literally."

Thanks for the explanations. I know that GR sits on top of SR, so to speak, when it comes to gravitation, so I expected there would be a reason for it not to be taken literally.

SR implies that mass can't reach c, but mass does reach a black hole's event horizon. How is this reconciled with SR?

Let me add this since it's not personal theory. I have no means of contributing anything directly to relativity theory, it's way beyond my ability, but I do have a set of skills I can apply to the problem of creating a model of spacetime. We have 2 at the moment: the marble rolling on a...