Randy M. Dumse wrote:

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
...

Please reread the Baez html, I don't think you've understood it.

Which part do you think I've not understood, Bill, because I find
nothing remarkable in that link?

It is not remarkable, but it conflicts significantly with what
you wrote.

For instance,

"You will never quite see the fragments of grapefruit reach the horizon;
instead they will appear to slow down and get redshifted
to invisibility as they approach the horizon. The fragments themselves
however will pass the event horizon and hit the singularity in a finite
amount of proper time."

seem to says essentiall the same thing I tried to convey.

I'm glad you seem to agree with Baez. Just how small a
fragment of a magnet remains magnetic, espcially when
contemplating the high temperatures associated with its
being ripped apart?

Next, here's some of what this discussion has lost. You wrote:

Your detector won't see the magnet for where the magnet is, but for
where the magnet was at some time before crossing the horizon played
like a slowing movie out to time infinity (or you loose the signal in a
less theoretical and more "technically" manner of consideration).

Time infinity?????????????

which fed the next tidbit of mine:

Black holes do *not* violate conservation laws so far as anyone
has been able to demonstrate. If you can detect magnetic force
coming from the magnet "forever," considering it doesn't even exist
any longer, you've discovered the equivalent of free energy. That's
not going to happen.

I agree that black holes do not violate conservation laws (at least not
at a classically level). However, the description of the magnetic effect
you would see (detect) would not be a violation of conservation law.

Of course it would if you can detect a magnet forever that isn't
there any loner but was once there.

Besides, in order to "see" the virtual image
you are forced to introduce fresh new energy any time you
want to see it.

No "fresh" energy is required, and none was suggested.

I was talking about another snipped pertinent part of the
discussion which, for some reason, you've engaged in
goalpost moving. Hrere's what I was discussing:

You had written:
Just because the detector "sees" the magnet still approaching the
horizon doesn't mean the magnet is still where it is seen. This is true
in the same sense as seeing a movie of Einstein riding a bicycle in New
Jersey. Just because you now see it, doesn't mean if you went to New
Jersey you'd find Einstein on that bike. It only means he was once
there and it took a long time for the image to reach your eye by
the route they took. Einstein has long ago left New Jersey.

Of course viewing the movie reuires fresh energy, invalidating
your example which I labeled as follows: "The movie argument
separates men from boys where science is concerned. It was
designed for simple minds."

What is seen to
the distant observer (one at a greater radius than the remaining image
of the infalling magnet) is the light that was emitted or reflected from
the object in a direction away from the hole before the object arrived
at the horizon. Nothing more. No new energy required. However, this
image becomes fainter for being spread out in time (darkens and
redshifts).

Strawman argumentation.

How long we can actually see the magnet and detect the magnetic effects
is more of a technical question.

Wrong. It disintegrates and heats up sending no more of its original
photons, but rather begins to appear as xrays to the observer.

Are you Randy the programmer?