"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:wTpJe.286569$Qo.235834@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
....
If we were on the inside of an event horizon, we could
not see beyond that
That is not correct. Light does not pass out
across the horizon but it does fall in.
But (outer) space becomes (inner) timelike.
This is the area I'm less sure about but I think
that is an artefact of the Schwarzchild coordinates
and it get resolved using Kruskal but please check
that, I could easily be wrong.
So any light that falls in loses any correlation to frequency, or
momentum. Only energy would be conserved, right?
No, have you looked at Andrew Hamilton's animations?
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml
This paragraph and image show the view of external
objects from 0.35 Schwarzschild radii:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singu...tml#distortion
The blue, orange and green shapes are the other
stars in his hypothetical double binary system.
If
you could hover just inside the event horizon
you would be bombarded by high energy photons
falling in.
I don't agree, and I can't quite tell you why that is. Ultimately I think
it is because you cannot hover just inside the event horizon, since to do
so would be to stop time.
Indeed, I was glossing over that.
So if you infall at a rate of 1 second per second, the light should be
received at finite energy, since your "motion along the time axis" is also
closely correlated to c.
True but the point was simply that you would
still receive photons from outside.
snip question to Tom
The classical surface of last emission is not within the Universe inside
the event horizon. The closest "place" in this Universe is "just inside
the event horizon". You can't see beyond it. It is opaque, if you accept
my "abomination" of the word. We won't get specular images from before
the CMBRM... either way.
Well it is certainly opaque around 379,000 years
because we have the photos ;-) I'm not aware of
any other "classical surface of last emission"
though.
The Schwarzchild solution to GR for a black hole,
describes another Universe inside the black hole, with
internal time starting where external space leaves off.
I'm not sure about that, it seems to depend on
the coordinate system you use but I know too
little of GR to comment sensibly.
You are no more God than I am. You have tried on the hat more than once,
in an effort to help me (and those that might someday have these or
related questions). For that I thank you. Some questions are so poorly
worded that they cannot be understood, and some questions just cannot be
answered. I'm thinking I've formulated the former, but you never know.
;)
I think you are being misled by the coordinate
feature of the Schwarzschild solution. Perhaps
after looking at Andrew's site, you could
reformulate the question.
....
I am sure that the H/He mix was present because
we see the radiation from it in the form of the
CMBR,
This is not conclusive, but *assumed*. That is the crux of my problem.
The mix is not assumed, it is observed in
primitive stars and other ways. It also
predicted from nucleosynthesis as the best
fit to other measurements as I said below.
Check the bands in the diagram at the bottom
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
You are right we assume that is the source,
but at a high enough temperature you get a
black body from any mix. Why do you think
this is a problem?
It is a perfect blackbody radiator, with some hint of structure (variable
intensity) written in/on it. The Universe should have been mostly
hydrogen and helium. Therefore the CMBRM must be mostly hydrogen and
helium. A logical chain, just not one I am fond of.
it is predicted by nucleosynthesis and we
can see the mix in primeval stars. I can be sure
it was opaque for over 300k years from lab
experiments and WMAP. I can't be sure what we
would have seen had it not existed, but then we
wouldn't be here to see anything.
I don't agree with "lab experiments" since we cannot generate an opaque
plasma in the lab.
No but we can measure the cross section of the
particles and calulate the depth need for the
plasma to be opaque.
I also don't agree with the infalling light being necessarily fatal.
I wasn't really saying that earlier.
If Joe were to don a spacesuit, and fall into the BH at the center of the
Milky Way, would the infalling light kill him? No. If other stuff didn't
kill him (with differential orbital velocity) he'd just see infalling
light that became more and more distorted (non-specular).
That was my point, even after crossing the
event horizon, you would still be able to
see the part of the universe you had left
hence the horizon cannot be opaque.
George