# Black holes may not exist!

Yes, he'd become causally disconnected with an entire region of spacetime. There are events that would never fall into his causal past. (Specifically, everything above and to the left of the dashed "end of signal" line I sketched out for you in the Minkowski diagram in [POST=3051585]this post[/POST].)
OK, I get it now and I've thought about it. Here's the rub, and it doesn't invoke the "infinite energy" objection: your infinitely accelerating observer is undergoing constant acceleration...forever. He is asymptotically approaching a velocity of c (relative to any inertial frame), just as if he were falling into an event horizon. A remote bookkeeper would claim that the traveler's clock is slowing to a crawl; he is essentially freezing in time, analogous to the event horizon journey. Therefore, it is expected that there would be events in spacetime which do not exist for the traveler...because he has essentially been frozen in time compared to the rest of the universe. Frankly I'd say that this only strengthens the frozen clock argument...

OK, I get it now and I've thought about it. Here's the rub, and it doesn't invoke the "infinite energy" objection: your infinitely accelerating observer is undergoing constant acceleration...forever. He is asymptotically approaching a velocity of c (relative to any inertial frame), just as if he were falling into an event horizon. A remote bookkeeper would claim that the traveler's clock is slowing to a crawl; he is essentially freezing in time, analogous to the event horizon journey. Therefore, it is expected that there would be events in spacetime which do not exist for the traveler...because he has essentially been frozen in time compared to the rest of the universe. Frankly I'd say that this only strengthens the frozen clock argument...
Actually, it sounds to me that you just acknowledged that the infalling traveler never freezes, he just moves slower and slower and slower, forever, according to the distant observer.

Actually, it sounds to me that you just acknowledged that the infalling traveler never freezes, he just moves slower and slower and slower, forever, according to the distant observer.
The infinite accelerator differs from the event horizon infaller by the crucial fact that the event horizon infaller's proper velocity reaches c at the event horizon.

The infinite accelerator differs from the event horizon infaller by the crucial fact that the event horizon infaller's proper velocity reaches c at the event horizon.
Yes. So we agree that you were wrong before, right?

Yes. So we agree that you were wrong before, right?
I've been wrong before but not on anything in this thread that I'm aware of. And I was speaking directly to przyk if that wasn't clear; thanks.

OK, I get it now and I've thought about it. Here's the rub, and it doesn't invoke the "infinite energy" objection: your infinitely accelerating observer is undergoing constant acceleration...forever. He is asymptotically approaching a velocity of c (relative to any inertial frame), just as if he were falling into an event horizon. A remote bookkeeper would claim that the traveler's clock is slowing to a crawl; he is essentially freezing in time, analogous to the event horizon journey. Therefore, it is expected that there would be events in spacetime which do not exist for the traveler...because he has essentially been frozen in time compared to the rest of the universe. Frankly I'd say that this only strengthens the frozen clock argument...

You've got the comparison backwards. The accelerating traveller is analogous to an observer staying outside the black hole and maintaining a constant Schwarzschild radial distance outside of it. A free-falling observer would be more closely analogous to an inertial observer in SR.

(Also, the accelerating traveller doesn't freeze, in that his clock doesn't converge to a particular limiting time.)

The infinite accelerator differs from the event horizon infaller by the crucial fact that the event horizon infaller's proper velocity reaches c at the event horizon.

Why should the proper velocity approaching c in Schwarzschild coordinates mean anything? The proper velocity isn't an invariant (though it's a component of the four-velocity vector). Also, in an SR inertial frame, the proper velocity becomes infinite, and not c, for a body approaching the speed of light.

I've been wrong before but not on anything in this thread that I'm aware of.
Well I suppose you can be wrong each time, but I'd probably prefer becoming right eventually. So which is it? Were you wrong before when you said that he freezes or were you wrong this time when you said he doesn't? Here it is again:
OK, I get it now and I've thought about it. Here's the rub, and it doesn't invoke the "infinite energy" objection: your infinitely accelerating observer is undergoing constant acceleration...forever. He is asymptotically approaching a velocity of c (relative to any inertial frame), just as if he were falling into an event horizon. A remote bookkeeper would claim that the traveler's clock is slowing to a crawl; he is essentially freezing in time, analogous to the event horizon journey.
Right: asymptotically approaching C - forever - and seeing the person's clock continue to get slower and slower - forever - is indeed what you see happen to someone falling into a black hole. The speed continues to slow - forever - and he never actually freezes.

I know it is late, but:
Good stuff Russ. It's nice to see a sincere physics post amidst the clutter.
So since you made no other comment on the graph but to say it is "good", then at this point you must agree that you were wrong before, correct? You now recognize that the distant observer never sees the infalling observer actually freeze, right?

But oops:
But you still don't get it. The math says what it says, and it says the infalling observer freezes.
So you saw the graph, had no comment other than that it was good, then repeat your error. So either you didn't really look at it or you didn't understand what it says or you do understand that you are wrong and you are trying to just dodge-away.

So since you made no other comment on the graph but to say it is "good", then at this point you must agree that you were wrong before, correct? You now recognize that the distant observer never sees the infalling observer actually freeze, right?
No. He sees him going slower and slower until motion is imperceptible. As per a glacier.

Russ_Watters said:
So you saw the graph, had no comment other than that it was good, then repeat your error. So either you didn't really look at it or you didn't understand what it says or you do understand that you are wrong and you are trying to just dodge-away.
As above.

No. He sees him going slower and slower until motion is imperceptible. As per a glacier.
Success! I can't believe you actually acknowledged it!

So where do we go from here? Do you want to correct all of the rest of your errors based on your now admitted false premise or should I go through them too?

We can start with the most obvious: since the infaller now doesn't freeze, there is nothing to stop him from crossing the event horizon, right? He doesnt freeze so he is always aware of what is happening to him and it never looks odd to him (as per the Principle of Relativity). Their differences in perception are just that: differences in perception caused by the space between them altering what they perceive.

We all good now?

I haven't made any errors. A glacier is frozen. The infaller freezes, he stops perceiving. And like I said, the black hole grows like a hailstone. The infaller is like a water molecule. When he joins the hailstone he doesn't pass through the surface. But he gets buried by other water molecules. So the surface passes through him.

I haven't made any errors. A glacier is frozen.
The glacier is a great analogy and you picked it too well: as you said in your previous post (correctly) a glacier is NOT frozen, it is just moving so slowly that its motion is "imperceptible".

You acknowledged it. You can't back away from it now. And why would you want to? Isn't understanding physics your goal? Or is it just trolling?

Uh, a glacier is not frozen?

So ice is not frozen?

Russ, you're on ignore.

deleted

deleted

Uh, a glacier is not frozen?

So ice is not frozen?

Russ, you're on ignore.
Yes, glaciers move, as you are clearly aware. Frozen - as in the solid form of water - and frozen - as in not moving - are completely different uses of the same word. You're not an idiot: clearly you know this. And the glacier example was so perfectly chosen, it is almost as if you purposely set yourself up to fail! This flip-flopping on what "frozen" means makes you look like a dying fish, suffocating and flopping around on the ground. Ignoring me is you hitting the eject button and conceding defeat. Clearly, I've broken you.

Next!

So, RJ, you still following Farsight down his hole?

Yes, glaciers move, as you are clearly aware. Frozen - as in the solid form of water - and frozen - as in not moving - are completely different uses of the same word. You're not an idiot: clearly you know this. And the glacier example was so perfectly chosen, it is almost as if you purposely set yourself up to fail! This flip-flopping on what "frozen" means makes you look like a dying fish, suffocating and flopping around on the ground. Ignoring me is you hitting the eject button and conceding defeat. Clearly, I've broken you.

Next!

So, RJ, you still following Farsight down his hole?

I think we can confidently conclude, that GR type BH's and there EH's exist as per general acceptance.
I certainly have not seen anything to contradict or falsify that at all.

I think we can confidently conclude, that GR type BH's and there EH's exist as per general acceptance.
I certainly have not seen anything to contradict or falsify that at all.
Perfect. Along those lines we can also confidently conclude that God exists.
It's generally accepted, yes? Plus, I doubt you've seen anything to contradict this fact.

Perfect. Along those lines we can also confidently conclude that God exists.
It's generally accepted, yes? Plus, I doubt you've seen anything to contradict this fact.

You have evidence of God???

We do have evidence [lots and lots of it] of GR BH's and EH's.
Do you have any evidence to falsify that?

You have evidence of God???

We do have evidence [lots and lots of it] of GR BH's and EH's.
Do you have any evidence to falsify that?

There is no evidence of Black Holes, just holes.