3 ms·
> Is this line of reasoning incorrect - I'm assuming it is - why? You're trying to reason about black holes with special relativity, rather than general relati
by Thrymr 11y ago
> Is this line of reasoning incorrect - I'm assuming it is - why?
You're trying to reason about black holes with special relativity, rather than general relativity. Special relativity explicitly ignores acceleration (and equivalently, gravitation). You mention the equivalence principle, which is relevant, but "spacetime curtavure of velocity c" makes no sense, because the curvature leads to acceleration, not velocity directly.
- PuffinBlue 11y agoWell that was sort of the point really, I was seeing how special relativity's relativity of simultaneity would work in an accelerated reference frame from the point of view of both observers. Intuitively (dangerous I know) it seemed that just because you're accelerating, that doesn't mean relativity of simultaneity wouldn't apply. I assumed the equivalence principle would be relevant because thinking about simulaneity of relativity in an accelerated reference frame (like an accelerating train at high c) would mean any outcome of the thought experiment would likely be transferable to relativity of simultaneity in a gravitational field, seeing as path through curved spacetime and acceleration is 'equivalent' (with caveats). Spacetime curtavure of velocity c - this is clumsy language but c behaves differently right? It's a constant, so unlike a helicopter hovering above the earth, spacetime's curvature must 'equal' c at the event horizon i.e. cause it to travel on a curved path back towards the singularity, or at least cause it to orbit on the event horizon. In this sense I was thinking about spacetime itself as the thing that was accelerating and the light was stationary at the event horizon, which is just a mental analogue really and likely unhelpful.