- 351

- 0

If you are familiar with general relativity then you know this:

[tex]{t_o=t_f}[/tex][tex]\sqrt{1 - r_o/r}[/tex]

where

[tex]{t_o}[/tex] is time passed close to the gravitational field

[tex]{t_f}[/tex] is time passed far from the gravitational field

[tex]{r_o}[/tex] is the radius of the event horizon

[tex]{r}[/tex] is the distance from the center of gravity

What this means is that the clock is ticking slower for an observer near a black hole (or any gravitational field) than for a distant observer. The weird part is the case where [tex]{r_0 = r}[/tex]. This means that zero time passes for an observer at the event horizon no matter how much time passes far from the black hole. But if that is true, how could anything ever get

*inside*the black hole to begin with?

It seems to me that the black hole never really collapses in the first place, or rather that it takes infinite time for a black hole to collapse. In that case, if Hawking is right, black holes always evaporate

*before*they form. So why is everybody so concerned about singularities? It doesn't sound like they form in the first place. A black hole is starting to sound more like a time-delayed implosion/explosion. The matter that forms the black hole and anything that fell in afterward is just crushed around the edge of the event horizon until it evaporates.

Am I missing something?