Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffocal
I believe the contradictions mentioned in the origin article would not only apply to the size of mass or "ball" but also on its ability to pass through what physicist call an event horizon.
|
Did you read the link on Birkhoff's theorem? From outside a spherically symmetric mass (like a star) there are no gravitational effects if the mass were to shrink or grow. It doesn't matter gravitationally if the mass is that of a low-density star or an infinitely dense singularity. If a person outside a black hole wanted to consider a black hole as a shell of mass where all the mass is stuck at the event horizon never being able to pass through because of time dilation then that's fine. By Birkhoff's theorem there is no way of distinguishing that from a singularity.
So, what is the contradiction? The person outside sees objects falling in a black hole become more and more time dilated and more and more redshifted until the object gets infinity close to the horizon and disappears (reaching infinite redshift). What does that contradict?
~modest
