0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I think we had that discussion before?To assume that the event horizon is equivalent to 'c' you also need to to define what happens with in-falling mass. In Einsteins universe that mass will pass the event horizon, as observed from its own frame of reference, although there is a lot more to that as 'apparent horizons', gravitational effects etc. But it will pass, and it shouldn't exist at all at that border, if the equivalence to 'c' was at the Event horizon. I too see a equivalence Mike, but I would place it at the singularities center if so. And that place must, if this is correct, be a place where everything we know (physics etc) breaks down.As for living in a non inertial frame I'm not sure how you mean. A inertial frame is any uniformly moving frame as I think of it. That we call it 'inertial' although those frames can be measured to have different uniform motion, relative Earths for example, state a equivalence between them that makes uniform motion very strange to me, or motion in general. Then we have accelerations that gives us the equivalence to a gravity. You could assume that it is a question of inertia expressed in the matters particles adapting new relations relative each other, time dilated as well as Lorentz contracted though. I'm wondering about that as we write? If that was so, then you might assume that uniform motion, wherein no 'gravity' is existent if ignoring matter itself, is the natural state of the universe. But matter has the ability to distort the 'space' which might be seen as a consequence from the way it 'binds' energy, if we assume energy to be some universal coin of measure.As long as you don't move you are in what I would call a inertial frame, loosely speaking that is. But as we constantly move you might want to define it as 'non-inertial' any way It's all a question of your definitions there, but they have to be very strict if you want people to see how you think.

As the arrow being entropy?I got to admit that I'm not sure what entropy stands for any more. Some want to define the arrow as 'entropy' as if the arrow was something living, constantly 'growing'. I prefer to avoid that word myself, because a lot of definitions of what entropy is seems to exist. It's a little like the idea of 'information' which I, although simpler to understand, also finds hard to melt. If we would be 'information' what about writing a equation on a ice cube? Where did it go, the equation I mean? And maybe that can be used for questioning entropy too?

My own view on it Mike is related to 'energy'. Even though we can't hold a pound of 'energy' in our hands it exist as a conceptual measure of something changing. And in a acceleration you spend 'energy', in a uniform motion you don't.

The event horizon of a black hole accelerates at the speed of light. Therefore the black hole accelerates at the speed of light( but is hidden behind the EH).General Relativity states that mass can not accelerate up to the speed of light. Matter being consumed by a black hole accelerates up to the speed of light at the EH.Is this a paradox? If not why not?