This is a complex problem to think about. I am making an effort to save information that is entering a black hole by a technique that is theoretically possible. One of the main problems facing theorists is that information appears to be lost by absorption into the hole and that is considered a no no.
You make a mistake in your suggestion that the boundary does not appear at a different location for each observer as I stated. You chose our far away frame of reference for every observer and that is not proper in this case. Each one has his own sets of observations. The second shipmate looks toward the black hole and sees the first one until the first one crosses a boundary that is closer to the black hole than the one we calculate and view. The second guy has a computer just like us and he knows that he has moved toward the hole by a certain amount. When he passed slowly by our location we discussed his mission and he and us agreed that the distance both of us determined to the black hole boundary was the same. Since he left our location, he traveled toward the beast and with his computer he knew that the distance to the center was becoming shorter with every moment of travel. Now, it is quite obvious that if he stops short of the boundary, he sees that it has moved to a now location that is closer to the center of the hole. He looks back and sees us a long way away since he has traveled for a long amount of time by his clock in the direction of the hole. Each observer has his own perception of time and distance. Of course each could transform his observations according to the rules of relativity, but his own observations must be valid. It is unproductive for you to say that observer two can perform transformations to get back to our perspective far away. Let him make his own observations of what he sees without our dilution. My contention is that he perceives the boundary as closer to the black hole than we originally thought. Furthermore, the first probe ship now is easier for him to observe since light emitted from it has not been red shifted to the degree that us far away people observe. Also, we look toward our good friend on the second ship that is closer to the center of the hole than us and see that his heart is beating slower than it was when he was nearby. He does not measure any change to his pulse rate since his time is local. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 26, 2012 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT]:Question About Event Horizon Let's get down to the nitty gritty here. At 12:20 PM 12/26/2012, David Roberson wrote: >Is the event horizon of a black hole considered an observer relative >location? We, who are at a very large distance relative to a black >hole see the event horizon as located a finite distance from the >center of the star. If another observer happens to be closer to the >same hole, does he detect it as somewhat nearer to the center of the hole? No. Here is how I come up with that. I read "closer" as still being in the same inertial frame of reference, and that frame of reference includes the black hole. So the two observers and the black hole location are stationary with respect to each other. That requires some kind of restraining structure, we will make one out of unobtainium, if I have any left over from my other project. Obviously, the unobtainium structure is quite large, it surrounds the black hole and is thus not going to fall into it. No touchie, though. Before the object reaches the black hole, it emits a photon toward the observers. That photon travels at the speed of light. As it climbs the gravity well, it red-shifts, but its velocity doesn't change. Because the red shift depends on the relative position of the point of emission, and the point of observation, and if one knows the original frequency of the light, and the gravitational field, one can determine the location of the object when the light was emitted. Let's assume that there are two photons, emitted together, parallel to each other, and one is captured by the inner observer, and one by the outer. The outer capture, of course, because of the time it takes the photon to travel to the outer station. But both stations will calculate the same position for the emitting object. However, that's a calculated position. The question implies a method for determining the position of an object. What do we mean by "location"? How do we determine it? How do we "see" an event horizon? What do we mean by "seeing" the position of the object? A black hole cannot pass any light from behind it. Light that grazes it will be curved, toward the object. Gravitational lensing. If there is a bright background, with collimated light, the black hole would appear, relatively close to the hole, to be larger than it is, because grazing light would converge. It would come to a focus point. Beyond that point, the black hole would be only a darkening of a region. Light that grazes would be blue-shifted as it approaches the black hole, and red-shifted as it continues past it. Okay, a thought experiment. We have a very good telescope. We can see two targets on the object, and we "see" the distance of the targets by how far apart the targets appear, we can measure that, and use the angular distance to determine the physical distance. Problem is, that damned gravitational lense. Suppose the targets are equidistant from the "center line," i.e., the line between the observer and the black hole, and the object is held at a distance. Long strong string, out to our unobtainium structure. Unobtainium twine, special manufacture. How do the two observers see the object? Well, the light emitted from the targets is lensed. It will be bent toward the centerline. The targets will appear to be farther apart than they are. Our rangefinder will "see" the object as closer than it is. It seems that this effect will increase with distance, as the light curves more. So the further observer will see the object as further out. But this is a mere optical effect! The method of determing distance by observing the red shift of light with a known emission frequency, through a known gravitational field, would not be fooled. Look, this is really outside my field. There are many ways to get an analysis like this wrong. I have about 10% confidence that I got it right. >I have an interesting thought experiment that depends upon the >answer to this question. My suspicion is that the perceived horizon >location does depend upon the exact location and most likely motion >of the observer. Has anyone had an opportunity to actually >calculate this effect? My suggestion is obvious. Nail down what you mean by "exact location." Motion of the observer tosses another complication into the picture, relativity, time dilation, yatta yatta. Gotta watch out for tought experiments. They often reveal more about how we think than they reveal about reality, and if our thinking is not really careful and solid, well, you can get more stinkin from thinkin than from drinkin, an old friend used to say.
