Recent content by Vastin

I thought that the image trapped at the edge of an event horizon was red-shifted virtually out of existence and effectively invisible to any form of external detection? Not sure what that means for the data it represents to be honest. The idea of the information being stripped 'off' of matter...

Yeah, I'm really not trying to contest GR - my GPS works too. ;) But I am trying to determine if there are domains where it is not as accurate as we would like, or possibly separate/related phenomena that prevents matter in a high density (near plank length) configuration from behaving as we...

It sounds like I have some fun reading to do. :) While I know the favored existing theorems posit singularities, there is still some real uncertainty about whether they'll hold up through further development of quantum theory - or as you suggest, they may hold up in general, but quantum...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound Ah, here we go. It's mainly volume bound, not surface area bound, though in the case of black holes, the surface area does happen to be a perfect bound for the amount of mass/data contained. Given that they are the densest things in the universe...

Indeed, the Holographic Principle is precisely what got me started on this entire re-examination of the black hole. Up until I read about GEO 600 results , I hadn't really put much thought into it, but the moment I got what they were getting at, I started thinking about where one would go...

I think the closest you could come would be a collision event between two black holes. The amount of energy they threw off via frame dragging as they orbited each other at near light-speed just before contact might look like a massive explosion to an outside observer - but the black holes...

To frame this problem in different terms, a singularity can have very few properties - no more, as far as I can tell, than a single, absurdly massive particle - yet it has supposedly ingested trillions of yottabytes of data. I can't square that circle, no matter what frame of reference we're...

Ah, ok. This is interesting, though I think it's going to take a while for me to comprehend the Kurskal-Szekeres coord system. I'm only modestly familiar with the classic Schwarzschild system, which is what I was basing the idea on. I'm curious, is the Kurskal-Szekeres considered a more...

Ok good. The second example I gave was not how I thought relativity worked, so I'm glad to hear your confirm that. It is a real distortion. Ok, this I don't get. I mean, I understand free fall as inertial motion - but I don't understand why acceleration would be considered any differently for...

Argh. I feel like I really have no grasp of relativity no matter how many times I read up on it. Is there an actual distortion of time, or just the perception of distortion. It never seems clear. Reading in detail now, it does appear to be a real distortion, in which case I still fail to see...

Yes, let's assume our observer is an imaginary immutable particle so that tidal forces aren't getting in the way. I'm not overly concerned with the specific properties of hawking radiation in the scope of this discussion - save that it exists and posits a finite lifetime for our black hole...

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more likely it seems that if I try to fling myself into a black hole the object will quite literally evaporate before I could 'hit' it, shrinking faster than I can fall (from my point of view). From your point of view I got sucked into the accretion layer...

Hmm. Given that it would take me an infinite amount of time (from your point of view) to pass through the event horizon, I'm not sure that I see the difference? Shouldn't matter accrete to an infinitesimally small (plank scale?) distance from the event horizon, and never succeed in crossing...

In the model I'm suggesting, the familiar (simplified 2D) space-time graph of a black hole would look slightly different. Rather than the throat of the graph proceeding down to presumed infinity, it would stop with an open ring where the event horizon is drawn. If one were to watch the graph...

Ah, no. You've missed my premise a bit. I'm not suggesting that black holes are FLAT. That would be very odd indeed. ;) I'm suggesting that they are two dimensional - ie, a sphere with only one side (the outside) and no volume. Two dimensional objects have no volume, but they are not...