- 172
- 0
We could imagine a rod moving fast enough to compress it within its own Schwarzschild radius. Should it collapse into a black hole? Or is the rod's own reference frame, where it isn't compressed, the one that makes decisions here?
It doesn't collapse to a black hole in any reference frame. The Swarzschild solution is for a stationary mass. If you want to predict the behavior of a moving spherical mass you will have to derive a different solution, and that solution will surely tell you it doesn't form an event horizon.We could imagine a rod moving fast enough to compress it within its own Schwarzschild radius. Should it collapse into a black hole? Or is the rod's own reference frame, where it isn't compressed, the one that makes decisions here?
If you want to predict the behavior of a moving spherical mass you will have to derive a different solution
A different form of the metric.What do you think is the difference between a moving and stationary mass in GR?
That is just nonsense as the Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution. Feel free to write down here in this forum what metric describes a moving mass.One of the assumptions in the Schwarzschild solution is that the mass is stationary.
I'm sorry this is confusing to you, but nothing you say here has any relevance and my GR background is not solid enough to explain this well. But I will try anyway.That is just nonsense as the Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution. Feel free to write down here in this forum what metric describes a moving mass.
Also each mass in the universe is as stationary as any other mass, it is one of the first principles of relativity.
So ?You are the one who is confused as you do not seem to understand that movement is relative.