According to the popular accounts of general relativity -
of questionable  accuracy - an object falling into a
black hole experiences infinite red shift, such that a
far observer doesn't see him actually cross the
horizon, in finite time.

This explanation is unsatisfactory.  Why should a
frequency modulation result in an extended light
transit time?  Is this really sensible? Alternatively,
one might speak of information transmission delay,
assuming information is physical.

A better model is that the light path through space,
or spacetime, is extended by the extreme gravitational
curvature.  i.e. an example of Shapiro delay?

Another question is whether the red shift represents
an energy loss, as the light escapes the gravity well.
In quantum mechanics, a photon loses energy, hf,
during this process; the wavelength grows, f diminishes.  

But GR is a classical theory, no photons, energy appears
in the wave intensity.   So does it predict an amplitude
drop, as the light departs?

--
Rich

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 6:46:11 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> According to the popular accounts of general relativity -
> of questionable accuracy - an object falling into a
> black hole experiences infinite red shift, such that a
> far observer doesn't see him actually cross the
> horizon, in finite time.
>
> This explanation is unsatisfactory. Why should a
> frequency modulation result in an extended light
> transit time? Is this really sensible? Alternatively,
> one might speak of information transmission delay,
> assuming information is physical.
>
> A better model is that the light path through space,
> or spacetime, is extended by the extreme gravitational
> curvature. i.e. an example of Shapiro delay?
>
> Another question is whether the red shift represents
> an energy loss, as the light escapes the gravity well.
> In quantum mechanics, a photon loses energy, hf,
> during this process; the wavelength grows, f diminishes.
>
> But GR is a classical theory, no photons, energy appears
> in the wave intensity. So does it predict an amplitude
> drop, as the light departs?
>
>
> --
> Rich

When the light cone points inside then effectively it's inside
the event horizon.

The geometry at the event horizon is "arbitrarily non-linear",
in separating massy and massless, there is still though that
it's also all "arbitrarily radial", because though the event horizon
is an infinitely thin shell at the singularity, due classical gravity
it's also another event horizon, that each shell also is a ball.

http://visualrelativity.com/LIGHTCONE/schwarzschild.html

When you mention Shapiro delay I think you're on to something
because, it's maybe not real, but currently used to fill in the theory.

Though a black hole exterior is bounded in space-time in dimensions,
the interior is effectively abitrarily large, in radius.

Here with respect to light speed being a constant and invariant to
all observers in deep space in a vacuum, is that because light is
wave-like there is that there is one light cone that is basically parallel
the event horizon. Then, observers about the paths that infall and
paths that outfall, would see various redshift and blueshift, with
respect to the imaging the object is, as a lens.

Now if you'll excuse me though I've read variously on the theories
about gravity and stellar formation and so on, here it's just some
points that might not be usual in explanation, but help explain
some of what is implied, if it helps.

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> This explanation is unsatisfactory.  Why should a
> frequency modulation result in an extended light
> transit time? 

Other way around. Simple enough.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

RichD wrote:

> According to the popular accounts of general relativity -
> of questionable  accuracy - an object falling into a black hole
> experiences infinite red shift, such that a far observer doesn't see him
> actually cross the horizon, in finite time.
>
> This explanation is unsatisfactory.  Why should a frequency modulation
> result in an extended light transit time?  Is this really sensible?
> Alternatively, one might speak of information transmission delay,
> assuming information is physical.

i guess the fluctuation will disappear, so what you have left is a
constant void of amplitude. Hence, no signal.