3 ms·
A very simplified idea is that the denser you get, the slower time flows (for an "outside" observer). So while for an "inner" observer density rises "fast" to t
by newpavlov 2y ago
A very simplified idea is that the denser you get, the slower time flows (for an "outside" observer). So while for an "inner" observer density rises "fast" to the point of singularity, for an "outside" observer time just freezes inside the forming black hole. Finally, if there is a way for black holes to "evaporate" (e.g. Hawking radiation), the "inner" observer will be able to observe shrinking black hole.
- pdonis 2y agoNo, this doesn't work. The "slower time flows" you is an optical illusion caused by the curvature of spacetime. It is not a way to avoid the formation of a black hole.
- newpavlov 2y agoAre you talking about the Hawking-Penrose theorems? Have you read the Kerr paper?
- pdonis 2y ago> Are you talking about the Hawking-Penrose theorems? No. Your wrong claim about the slowing of time flow has nothing to do with those. > Have you read the Kerr paper? Yes. It doesn't say anything like what you were saying. I have commented on it elsewhere in this discussion.
- effie 2y agoCan you please give some reference for this claim? Time stopping at the event horizon is quite the standard view in "science communication" of black holes.
- pdonis 2y ago> Can you please give some reference for this claim? Any GR textbook. I referenced two classic ones elsewhere in this discussion. Or, for that matter, you could read the classic paper by Oppenheimer and Snyder which was the first published model of actual gravitational collapse to form a black hole. And was published in...1939. What I'm saying is not news. > Time stopping at the event horizon is quite the standard view in "science communication" of black holes. That's because "science communication" sucks at accurately portraying the actual science.
- effie 2y ago> "science communication" sucks at accurately portraying the actual science. Completely agree.