4 ms·

> there is an eternally collapsing pseudosingularity that is getting smaller and smaller and denser and denser, but the denser it is the more time-dilation it u

> there is an eternally collapsing pseudosingularity that is getting smaller and smaller and denser and denser, but the denser it is the more time-dilation it undergoes and so the collapse can never finish in finite time, at least for an outside observer) > From the outside it's a point. If I understand what you're saying, it's that from the outside it wants to be a point, but can never quite get there in (our) finite time. So we just see a big red shifted "frozen in time" black hole event horizon. Evaporates maybe in the future, but point is we never actually get a singularity on our side of the horizon. > From the inside, it's an infinitely large volume. This makes sense to me, more than a singularity existing. On the inside everything is ripped apart as space infinitely expands. So doesn't this imply there is no singularity on either side of the event horizon then? It's as if the "wanting" to be a singularity on our side of the horizon is countered/balanced by frozen time. And on the other side of the horizon, from the particles point of view you can't freeze time. So instead the singularity is countered by infinitely expanding space to prevent just this sort of thing from happening. Is this some sort of relativistic time/space conservation law? It's like the extreme gravity trying to create a particle singularity just ends up expanding the space between the particles instead. Hmmm. We know that at relativistic speeds, trying to accelerate a particle to C leads to time slowing down. In this case too much gravity trying to create a singularity leads to space expansion instead? Are these just two sides to the same coin. Frozen time = infinite space depending on your relativistic point of view?? Sort of like the cosmic censorship hypothesis, just extended from "no naked singularities exist" on our side of the universe, to "no singularities exist" on the other side as well. Did I get that right, or did I butcher it?

lmm 3y ago
> If I understand what you're saying, it's that from the outside it wants to be a point, but can never quite get there in (our) finite time. Right. Bear in mind that's only one school of thought, and not the most mainstream one. > Is this some sort of relativistic time/space conservation law? > Are these just two sides to the same coin. Frozen time = infinite space depending on your relativistic point of view?? Separation is Lorentz invariant. But there's no general theorem here AFAIK, at least not a known one, though the behaviour certainly rhymes.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  What do you mean not the mainstream one? When people say that black hole exists, they mean you can imagine a hypothetical situation, where black hole exists in its complete form. It's still mathematically accurate to say that black hole doesn't form for a distant observer during collapse, it freezes just before it approaches Schwarzschild radius.

lmm 3y ago

> If I understand what you're saying, it's that from the outside it wants to be a point, but can never quite get there in (our) finite time. Right. Bear in mind that's only one school of thought, and not the most mainstream one. > Is this some sort of relativistic time/space conservation law? > Are these just two sides to the same coin. Frozen time = infinite space depending on your relativistic point of view?? Separation is Lorentz invariant. But there's no general theorem here AFAIK, at least not a known one, though the behaviour certainly rhymes.

GoblinSlayer 3y ago
What do you mean not the mainstream one? When people say that black hole exists, they mean you can imagine a hypothetical situation, where black hole exists in its complete form. It's still mathematically accurate to say that black hole doesn't form for a distant observer during collapse, it freezes just before it approaches Schwarzschild radius.