Is a black hole
inside space, or
is space inside
a black hole?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

<snip>

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 2:12:22 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> Is a black hole
> inside space, or
> is space inside
> a black hole?
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

A black hole is another axiom. Read my new post, if you want. I wrote about this.

On 8/20/2021 10:13 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Is a black hole
> inside space, or
> is space inside
> a black hole?
>
>

For some reason, I do think our universe is a child contained within a
black hole residing in our parent universe. The implies that our
universe has many children of its own...

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:12:22 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Is a black hole
> inside space, or
> is space inside
> a black hole?
>
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold). The way it
manifests itself in the model is that as a point approaches a certain region, the
metric tensor there becomes arbitrarily large. So even if we knew what piece to
add to spacetime to "include" the black hole, the result would be a manifold
with a certain subset (the singular set) over which the metric could not be extended
smoothly (like y = 1/x cannot be extended smoothly over the origin x = 0).

In the Schwarzschild case, not only the geometry cannot be extended over
the black hole but also its smooth structure. I think its PL structure does
extend though as it only involves "pinching", like the vertex of a cone.

In the Kerr case, the black hole singular region does embed smoothly
(it's a circle) but the geometry of course does not extend over it.

--
Jan

On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 13:31:56 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:12:22 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Is a black hole
> > inside space, or
> > is space inside
> > a black hole?
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).

Sure, it is only a part of the sick imagination of Shit's
followers.

On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
> Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).

Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
which is clearly part of the spacetime manifold.

You are talking about the singularity inside the black hole, not the
black hole itself. It is just the singularity that must be deleted from
the manifold.

The term "black hole" was invented to describe a region for which
anything that enters cannot ever come back out. That clearly applies to
the horizon and the region inside it.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
>> Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime
>> manifold).
>
> Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
> which is clearly part of the spacetime manifold.
> You are talking about the singularity inside the black hole, not the
> black hole itself. It is just the singularity that must be deleted from
> the manifold.
> The term "black hole" was invented to describe a region for which
> anything that enters cannot ever come back out. That clearly applies to
> the horizon and the region inside it.

absolutely, he is confused like a LGBTQ+. I don't know what happens in
that country, since this is basic math modelling stuff.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 4:31:56 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 10:12:22 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Is a black hole
> > inside space, or
> > is space inside
> > a black hole?
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
> Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).

BH are both inside and outside the universe?
It has an inner volume jan...
> Jan

If you say we do not know what is inside jan?
Is there energy that fell in to form it?
Is there not more gravity inside that
accelerates mater above the light speed
event horizon fall speed?

Mitchell Raemsch

The Starmaker wrote:

> Is a black hole inside space, or is space inside a black hole?

never stick a blackhole into your ass. You don't know what is going on.
They want you no more.

They Have STOLEN Your Pension Funds...Now Get The Jab.
https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=7GXUD52NN2UH

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Is a black hole
> inside space, or
> is space inside
> a black hole?
>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Let me clarify what a black hole is..

Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2

and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
enhanced sharper for you:

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1

Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)

look at towards the center outwards to the edge...

it is made up of...waves.

Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.

Those waves...can reach the earth
and maybe change the direction of the
magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.

A black hole is simply...simply...

a whirlpool is space.

(nasa doesn't want you to see the waves) (so they blurred everything)

https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2

but the waves are there!
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1

of course if the earth was closer it would get caught up in the
whirlpool fabric of space.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
> Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,

Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
confusing.

--
Jan

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
>
> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
> >
> > Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
>
> Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
> Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
> when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
> confusing.
>
> --
> Jan

Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.

It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 06:33:10 UTC+2, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
> > >
> > > Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
> >
> > Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
> > Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
> > when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
> > confusing.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
>
> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?

It is, absolutely; and that, of course, means, that for a distant observer
(like us all) a black hole doesn't exist and never will.

On 8/23/2021 12:48 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 06:33:10 UTC+2, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
>>>>
>>>> Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
>>>
>>> Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
>>> Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
>>> when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
>>> confusing.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jan
>> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
>> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
>> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
>> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
>> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
>> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
>> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
>>
>> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
>> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?

Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black holes".
>
> It is, absolutely; and that, of course, means, that for a distant observer
> (like us all) a black hole doesn't exist and never will.

Does that mean you sobered up from your continuous vodka binge long
enough that you finally understand gravitational time dilation and how
it would be infinite for a black hole? So you finally understand t' !=
t? Cool.

Now we watch to see how long (short) this period of sanity lasts before
the vodka makes a reappearance.

On 8/22/2021 12:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Is a black hole
>> inside space, or
>> is space inside
>> a black hole?
>>
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
>
>
> Let me clarify what a black hole is..
>
> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
>
>
> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>
>
> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
> enhanced sharper for you:
>
>
> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>
>
> Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)
>
> look at towards the center outwards to the edge...
>
> it is made up of...waves.
>
> Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.
>
> Those waves...can reach the earth
> and maybe change the direction of the
> magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.
>
> A black hole is simply...simply...
>
> a whirlpool is space.

They tend to show up in strange places. Take a look at the spirals in
one of my experimental vector fields:

https://fractalforums.org/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=6186

https://fractalforums.org/gallery/1612-160821083715.jpeg

Can you see both of the links?

[...]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Is a black hole
> > inside space, or
> > is space inside
> > a black hole?
> >
> > --
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> > the unchallengeable.
>
> Let me clarify what a black hole is..
>
> Here is the dumb version NASA released of a photo of a black hole:
>
> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>
> and here is the smart version of the same photo that I the starmaker
> enhanced sharper for you:
>
> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>
> Now, instead of looking at the black hole center (not so black is it?)
>
> look at towards the center outwards to the edge...
>
> it is made up of...waves.
>
> Ocean waves, gravitional waves, waves going out spreading out.
>
> Those waves...can reach the earth
> and maybe change the direction of the
> magentic pole...change the direction of earth's climate, etc.
>
> A black hole is simply...simply...
>
> a whirlpool in space.
>
> (nasa doesn't want you to see the waves) (so they blurred everything)
>
> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/2
>
> but the waves are there!
> https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1120589330349584384/photo/1
>
> of course if the earth was closer it would get caught up in the
> whirlpool fabric of space.

In other words, a whirlpool in space is no different than a whirlpool in the ocean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirlpool#/media/File:Whirlpool.jpg

Scientific definitions for whirlpool
whirlpool
[ wûrl'pool' ]
A rapidly rotating current of water or other liquid that sucks everything near it toward its center.

Either a space whirlpool or ocean water whirlpool...the principles are the same.

>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:

> Scientific definitions for whirlpool whirlpool [ wûrl'pool' ]
> A rapidly rotating current of water or other liquid that sucks
> everything near it toward its center.

there are blackholes inside blackholes, potentially an infinite number of
blackholes inside a blackhole. I have the model.

Muccio Grande wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Scientific definitions for whirlpool whirlpool [ wûrl'pool' ]
> > A rapidly rotating current of water or other liquid that sucks
> > everything near it toward its center.
>
> there are blackholes inside blackholes, potentially an infinite number of
> blackholes inside a blackhole. I have the model.

is it whirlpool or maytag?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 16:26:22 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/23/2021 12:48 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 06:33:10 UTC+2, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 9:57:47 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/21/21 6:31 AM, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Black hole is outside spacetime (not a part of the spacetime manifold).
> >>>>
> >>>> Not true. A black hole includes the region inside its event horizon,
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I meant just the singular set as "the black hole". This is non-standard usage.
> >>> Sorry to confuse everyone. Just keep in mind that I meant JUST the singularity
> >>> when I wrote "black hole" above. I'll stop using this convention because it's
> >>> confusing.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jan
> >> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> >> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> >> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> >> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> >> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> >> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> >> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
> >>
> >> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> >> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
> Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
> in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black holes".
> >
> > It is, absolutely; and that, of course, means, that for a distant observer
> > (like us all) a black hole doesn't exist and never will.
> Does that mean you sobered up from your continuous vodka binge long
> enough that you finally understand gravitational time dilation and how
> it would be infinite for a black hole?

Of course, gravitational dilation imagined by a bunch of
fanatic idiots affects black holes imagined by a bunch of
fanatic idiots. Very simple, stupid Mike. "After Infinite time",
however, means "never".

On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > Gary wrote:
> > >
> > > Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> > > energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> > > that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> > > instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> > > that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> > > angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> > > axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
> > >
> > > It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> > > clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
>
> Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
> in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black holes".

For us distant observers, I don't think it matters whether the mass is inside the EH or
plastered on a sphere just outside. The external field will be the same.

The clueless sot babbled:
>
> > It is, absolutely; and that, of course, means, that for a distant observer
> > (like us all) a black hole doesn't exist and never will.

As I said above, it essentially DOES exist. All it requires is that enough matter be
in a sufficiently small space.

> Does that mean you sobered up from your continuous vodka binge long
> enough that you finally understand gravitational time dilation and how
> it would be infinite for a black hole? So you finally understand t' !=
> t? Cool.

I doubt that very much :-)

> Now we watch to see how long (short) this period of sanity lasts before
> the vodka makes a reappearance.

If we could put him in orbit around a BH at r = 1.5*r_Sch, at the microsecond of
sanity, he will be sane forever, as far as we're concerned.

On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 15:28:15 UTC+2, hit...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > > Gary wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> > > > energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> > > > that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> > > > instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> > > > that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> > > > angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> > > > axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
> > > >
> > > > It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> > > > clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
> >
> > Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
> > in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black holes".
> For us distant observers, I don't think it matters whether the mass is inside the EH or
> plastered on a sphere just outside. The external field will be the same.
>
> The clueless sot babbled:
> >
> > > It is, absolutely; and that, of course, means, that for a distant observer
> > > (like us all) a black hole doesn't exist and never will.
> As I said above, it essentially DOES exist.

No, trash. Above you wrote that it will start existing after
infinite amount of time on a distant observer's (mine or
yours) clock. I. e. never.
That you don't understand what you write is rather ordinary
among The Shit's cultists.

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
>> in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black
>> holes".
>
> For us distant observers, I don't think it matters whether the mass is
> inside the EH or plastered on a sphere just outside. The external field
> will be the same.
>
> The clueless sot babbled:
>>
>> > It is, absolutely; and that, of course, means, that for a distant
>> > observer (like us all) a black hole doesn't exist and never will.
>
> As I said above, it essentially DOES exist. All it requires is that
> enough matter be in a sufficiently small space.

not true. Size doesn't matter below the event horizon. There are
potentially an infinite number of blackholes inside a blackhole.

On 8/24/2021 9:28 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
>>>> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
>>>> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
>>>> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
>>>> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
>>>> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
>>>> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
>>>>
>>>> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
>>>> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
>>
>> Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
>> in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black holes".
>
> For us distant observers, I don't think it matters whether the mass is inside the EH or
> plastered on a sphere just outside. The external field will be the same.

True. I wonder if we had such an "almost black hole" with frozen mass
and added even more mass if the view of the previous mass changes.

>> Does that mean you sobered up from your continuous vodka binge long
>> enough that you finally understand gravitational time dilation and how
>> it would be infinite for a black hole? So you finally understand t' !=
>> t? Cool.
>
> I doubt that very much :-)

I do as well. :-)
>
>> Now we watch to see how long (short) this period of sanity lasts before
>> the vodka makes a reappearance.
>
> If we could put him in orbit around a BH at r = 1.5*r_Sch, at the microsecond of
> sanity, he will be sane forever, as far as we're concerned.
>

:-)

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 11:54:50 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> On 8/24/2021 9:28 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary wrote:
> > > >
> >>> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> >>> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> >>> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> >>> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> >>> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> >>> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> >>> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
> >>>
> >>> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> >>> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
> > >
> > > Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
> > > in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black holes".
> >
> > For us distant observers, I don't think it matters whether the mass is inside the EH or
> > plastered on a sphere just outside. The external field will be the same.
>
> True. I wonder if we had such an "almost black hole" with frozen mass
> and added even more mass if the view of the previous mass changes.

The mass and, therefore, the external field would increase.

> > > Does that mean you sobered up from your continuous vodka binge long
> > > enough that you finally understand gravitational time dilation and how
> > > it would be infinite for a black hole? So you finally understand t' !=
> > > t? Cool.
> >
> > I doubt that very much :-)
>
> I do as well. :-)
> >
> > > Now we watch to see how long (short) this period of sanity lasts before
> > > the vodka makes a reappearance.
> >
> > If we could put him in orbit around a BH at r = 1.5*r_Sch, at the microsecond of
> > sanity, he will be sane forever, as far as we're concerned.
>
> :-)

If he were in the 1.5*r_S orbit, the extra added mass would cause him to spiral in
and be spread over the surface in a nanometer-thick sheet. A fitted sheet and a
fitting end.

Or would he? I don't know. My head is hurting again.

On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 19:54:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/24/2021 9:28 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Monday, August 23, 2021 at 8:26:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >>> Gary wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Say you are are far from some mass that doesn't meet the BH criteria. It's radiating
> >>>> energy (light) in all directions, and you are watching. Any point on the surface of
> >>>> that mass radiates light in all directions (cosine distribution, IIRC), but you have
> >>>> instruments all around the mass. Now let us have matter continuously falling into
> >>>> that luminous mass. .As more and more matter falls in, the light coming out at an
> >>>> angle theta to the radial axis at some point can't get out, although light on the radial
> >>>> axis can still get out. When that angle becomes zero, a BH comes into existence.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's my understanding that it takes an infinite amount of time (on a distant observer's
> >>>> clock) for that to happen. Isn't that correct?
> >>
> >> Which leads to an interesting paradox of whether black holes can exist
> >> in our observable universe, rather than only frozen "almost black holes".
> >
> > For us distant observers, I don't think it matters whether the mass is inside the EH or
> > plastered on a sphere just outside. The external field will be the same.
> True.

For us distant observers it doesn't matter that there is no black hole
there, what is important is that GURUS HAVE SAID they are.