[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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?

[yor_on]

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.

[MikeS (OP)]

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.

Probably.

As you approach the EH time dilates and distance contracts as viewed by a distant observer.  If distance contracts then something must be accelerating, either the object approaching the EH or the EH itself.

By non-inertial I mean an accelerating frame of reference.

[MikeS (OP)]

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?

As I see it, the BB wound the Universe up.  Entropy is the spring unwinding and loosing useful energy.  Entropy is the Universes route to its 'most' stable state.  That state would ideally be zero useful energy.  I don't really understand what it is that you are questioning about entropy?

[MikeS (OP)]

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.

Very true.  Two massive objects will be attracted toward each other, accelerate toward each other.  The closer they get the greater their combined mass and the more time dilates for them.  Time dilation is a way of tying up useful energy rendering it of little use.  So time dilation and gravity are examples of entropy.

[Heikki Rinnemaa]

 

Black hole, bign bang, etc,,is only theory,,not measured and proved think.

Human-kind has measure space-object motion just only about 50 years,,and with satellite only about 30 years. This measuring period is so short that we cannot says even that is earth leaving sun or going on in.

All objects in the space send matter round of it,,like photon,,particles,,etc,,or (matter-vibration,,like waves which can only goes if matter exist), ant if this object is so far away  that  sending thing dont come here,,we cannot observe that object.

But this measuring time,,,,50years,,,if you calculate that thought that we are one point of milkywa-galaxy,,how we can prove that,,,? We have round some ,000000degree,,, but are we sure that this means that sun-system is rounding some galaxy? No,,we cannot be sure.

Space-data is those long-time and long-distance thought over-theoretized and forget real world and possibility,,i mean measuring time and also measuring systems.

We known actually only little of that space where we live.

 
 

[loose_nukes]

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?

There is no paradox here my friend. You are assuming that matter continues to remain matter thru it's entire trip from the event horizon toward the singularity. Your matter is converted into pure energy before it reaches the speed of light. And BTW, this transformation does not occur at the event horizon. It occurs somewhere between the event horizon and the singularity.