After one falls into a black hole - specifically, transited
the horizon - is it meaningful to speak of one's
distance from the horizon?

As seen from the exterior, it's spherical, with a well
defined diameter. The question is whether a motorist
could look in his rear view mirror and say "We're about
10 km from the surface."

--
Rich

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:51:28 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> After one falls into a black hole - specifically, transited
> the horizon - is it meaningful to speak of one's
> distance from the horizon?

How can you reach it if space is contracting by its gravity?

according to GR distance is supposed to contract
to zero like time does reaching the event horizon.
Theory is a mathematical failure.

Mitchell Raemsch

On 10/5/21 9:51 PM, RichD wrote:
> After one falls into a black hole - specifically, transited the
> horizon - is it meaningful to speak of one's distance from the
> horizon?

Determining when one passes the horizon cannot be done by any local
experiment (i.e. within one's spaceship). But by continuously observing
light from suitably-distributed distant astronomical objects, one can do
so. With a clock one can then determine one's elapsed proper time since
passing the horizon. I don't know how one might convert that to a
distance, and I doubt it makes much sense to try [@].

[@] When you passed the horizon, it [%] was traveling
with speed c relative to your locally inertial frame;
after that it [%] is traveling faster than c relative
to your locally inertial frame. And of course your
locally inertial frame is constantly changing as you
inevitably fall into the singularity. Mathematically,
one could integrate path length from the horizon [%],
but I doubt that is practicable.

[%] I mean the point on your path where it intersected
the horizon.

In the vacuum of space, outside any black holes, it is non-trivial to
convert one's elapsed proper time into distance traveled [#]. Normally
one would have to take optical sightings on "fixed" distant astronomical
objects with known locations, but that has thorns unless spacetime is
sufficiently flat. Inside a black hole, spacetime is not sufficiently
flat, and there are no objects with known locations (all are falling
toward the singularity).

[#] Leaving aside the ambiguity/difficulty of selecting
a frame relative to which it is to be measured.

Tom Roberts

On October 12, tjrob137 wrote:
>> After one falls into a black hole - specifically, transited the
>> horizon - is it meaningful to speak of one's distance from the
>> horizon?
>
> Determining when one passes the horizon cannot be done by any local
> experiment (i.e. within one's spaceship). But by continuously observing
> light from suitably-distributed distant astronomical objects, one can do
> so. With a clock one can then determine one's elapsed proper time since
> passing the horizon. I don't know how one might convert that to a
> distance, and I doubt it makes much sense to try [@].
> [@] When you passed the horizon, it [%] was traveling
> with speed c relative to your locally inertial frame;
> after that it [%] is traveling faster than c relative
> to your locally inertial frame. And of course your
> locally inertial frame is constantly changing as you
> inevitably fall into the singularity. Mathematically,
> one could integrate path length from the horizon [%],
> but I doubt that is practicable.
> [%] I mean the point on your path where it intersected
> the horizon.
This illustrates a case where intuition fails radically. An observer
outside sees you fall in at a definite point on the surface. But on
the interior, looking backward, it's almost meaningless to point a
finger and say "there's the point where we entered."

It's like the Star Trek teleporter, where one materializes out of thin air.

--
Rich

I thought only spaghetti fell in....
or it would be flat by contraction all of the way...

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> I thought only spaghetti fell in....
> or it would be flat by contraction all of the way...

Flu Being Primed To Hide 'Vaccine' Deaths

On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-7, Kendale Gross wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I thought only spaghetti fell in....
> > or it would be flat by contraction all of the way...
> Flu Being Primed To Hide 'Vaccine' Deaths

Let's assume that Lorentz invariant works, then What? Lorentz (1899) uses the invariant to reverse the negative result of Michelson experiment to justify the ether, composed of matter, and, Einstein (1917) uses the reversal of MMX to justify the ether yet vacuum proves the ether does not exist. Also, both Lorentz and Einstein use relativity (coordinate system transformation) to justify Maxwell theory but Maxwell equations are derived using Faraday induction effect that is not luminous. Using mumble jumble mathematical gymnastics cannot be used to justify the wave theory of light and modern theoretical physics (QM, QED, string theory, QFT,......etc. etc. that are based on the gauge since an electromagnetic wave (quantized or not) is based on a wave formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter, where the physical structure (ether) has precedence before any abstract mathematical formulation.

On 10/14/21 8:15 PM, RichD wrote:
>[black hole] This illustrates a case where intuition fails radically.

Of course intuition learned on earth can be wildly wrong in physical
situations far removed from anything on earth, such as a black hole.

> An observer
> outside sees you fall in at a definite point on the surface.

Actually such an observer sees you approach the horizon at a definite
point on it, but never observes you to cross it.

> But on
> the interior, looking backward, it's almost meaningless to point a
> finger and say "there's the point where we entered."

You can point back along your trajectory in the direction to the point
where you crossed the horizon. But that intersection point is receding
from you faster than the local speed of light.

> It's like the Star Trek teleporter, where one materializes out of thin air.

It is nothing at all like that science fiction. Well, we don't actually
know, we only have GR to predict what happens.

Tom Roberts

On Saturday, 16 October 2021 at 16:42:12 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/14/21 8:15 PM, RichD wrote:
> >[black hole] This illustrates a case where intuition fails radically.
>
> Of course intuition learned on earth can be wildly wrong in physical
> situations far removed from anything on earth, such as a black hole.

But it's fine when dealing with a fanatic crank mumbling
about THE BEST WAY we're allegedly FORCED to.

Einstein is structurally unifying an electromagnetic field with a mass (m) using the inertial mass Eo/c2 (equ 52) since the formation of a light wave requires a medium (ether) composed of matter yet the ether does not physically exist (vacuum), In addition, the inertial mass is used to justify the electromagnetic ether but the inertial mass (m = Eo/c2) is massless since Eo represents the energy of an electromagnetic photon. Compton photon momentum (p = λ/h) is used to justify the inertial mass but experimentally, a 3 W laser beam or 1 W X-ray (dt = .1s) does not displace a gold foil which invalids Einstein concept the photon inertial mass.