4 ms·
This ”never cross” statement bends my mind. Doesn’t it also mean that if we are observers, observing a black hole, we should not see an actual blackness as we s
by he0001 4y ago
This ”never cross” statement bends my mind. Doesn’t it also mean that if we are observers, observing a black hole, we should not see an actual blackness as we should only see things that are slowly falling into the hole? Regardless of how much time that has been spent from the beginning of time? I mean the event horizon is the boundary but that never happen?
- cthalupa 4y agoThe light is increasingly redshifted, so for practical purposes it disappears from view quite quickly. The more sensitive the instrument, the longer you can observe, and this doesn't really have a limit - as sensitivity approaches infinity, so does the length of time you could continue to observe the object. But for practical purposes, we would not see a black hole as some sort of weird psuedo-magnet with all sorts of junk stuck to the edge of the event horizon.
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoBecause of time dilation, light emitted (or reflected off of) objects very near the event horizon end up getting spaced out over (almost infinite) amounts of time. For example, lets say you dropped a beacon that flashes every second into a black hole. As it approached the event horizon, you'd see the flashes only happen every 2 seconds, 4 seconds, minute, hour, decade, etc. Meanwhile, the length of those flashes are getting longer at the same rate, while producing the same number of photons, so the light gets dimmer and dimmer.
- he0001 4y agoAnother factor, that other things are falling into the whole, wouldn’t that mean that the event horizon, relatively, gets closer to an earlier object? Meaning an object may reach the event horizon faster than it would originally or is that constant relatively where the object exist in its descend?