Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:5JPOe.124798$E95.60198@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:yUwOe.124442$E95.97537@fed1read01...
Dear Geroge Dishman,
...
I understand what you are saying, George. Now try these:
URL:http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/baby.txt

David, is there a way to get rid of the "URL:" part,
it breaks the link in Outlook Express because the
text is no longer a URL if you put "URL" in front.

I intentionally add the URL:, so that Outlook Express and
other readers will correctly form long links. Oh well...
FWIW the links work for me.

Sometimes it does for me too but the definition
of a URL starts with the protocol to be used
followed by a colon. You are telling the software
to use the "URL" protocol instead of "HTTP".

OK.

I'll trim a lot because we have really covered
it.

But nothing else did, nor did it it in any particular talk
about the production of an inner Universe due to a choice of
metric. However, it is not important. I think it is a good
question if the event horizon is even *in* this Universe.

If there is a wind blowing from your back at Mach2,
you cannot hear someone in front of you. They are
still "in this universe". The key pint is that
no physics changes at the horizon and there is no
discontinuity.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11125.html

This is the standard interpretation, yes. There are alternatives
to this interpretation, alternatives provided by GR experts, and
I am attempting to test what I see is a perhaps falsifiable part
of their solutions. Yet I keep getting this "but the standard
interpretation is..."

Note also Andrew's quiz question 5:

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/quiz.html#quiz

The answer is he

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html#metricinside

I think we can stop talking about Andrew and his pages. His
methods are not revealed, his wording is (apparently) sloppy, so
I don't think I can learn anything further from his pages as they
stand.

Then he claims that we "fall at c". And yet, this seems to
be what is at hand.

Imagine a duck swimming up river at 5m/s in a
stream that narrows approaching a weir. As the
stream narrows, the water moves faster. If the
duck starts where the water flows at 4m/s it
will escape but if it starts where it is 6m/s
it will move towards the weir ever faster until
it goes over.

A singularity occurs if the width of the stream
gets to zero at the weir as the speed becomes
infinite, but nothing happens to the water (or
the duck) where the flow is 5m/s.

The analogies are fine George. Unfortunately, *to whom*
does the infalling person appear to fall at c? Presumably
a stationary observer, but there are on possible stationary
observers inside the photon sphere, much less inside the
event horizon.

This I think is where I disagree with Martin (which
worries me somewhat). I believe the answer is "to
an observer at infinity not moving relative to the
location of the black hole.". Have a look at the
freefall diagram:

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html#freefall

Note that the green lines fall to the centre in
finite time and the time coordinate which is the
Y axis is the same regardless of whether the green
line is inside or outside. The orange lines show
light emitted by an infalling object. As the green
lines approach the horizon, the orange lines get
nearer to vertical and take ever longer to reach
the right-hand edge of the chart where a 'distant'
observer might hover by continually firing a rocket.

Once the green line (the freefalling object) crosses
the horizon though, the orange lines fall inwards,
the water is moving too fast for the duck (neat,
I just found Andrew used the same idea but with
canoes).

I have discussed path_average_speed with you in relation to
Shapiro time delay. Any usage of "falling at c" for any observer
outside the BH is meaningless, even if you don't "buy" the "new
internal Universe" interpretation. Because the
path_average_speed for light at the horizon now has a 0 value
towards anyone outside the BH. So such claims would be
non-sequitur.

So what use are the words, what meaning can they convey
where the context is not part of this Universe (except though
total mass, total charge, total angular moementum)?

It is still part of this universe, the other universe
idea comes in after the matter passes the r=0 point.

No. I provided citations, George, but I cannot make you read
them. The other Universe starts at (some function of) r_S.

David A. Smith