Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Did you read the link on Birkhoff's theorem?
~modest
|
Yes I did however, I believe that Birkhoff's theorem contradicts the basic concepts of Relativity because as was mentioned in the original article I think relativity allows one to define the time dilation associated with the gravitational forces on the surface of collapsing mass in terms of an inertial reference frame at its center.
"Someone who was on that surface would the observe the differential gravitational forces caused by an imploding mass with respect to someone who remains at a fixed circumference or is at the center of the collapsing mass. But according to the Einstein theory of relativity, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on the stars surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame to be increasing. Therefore, he or she will perceive time as slowing to a crawl with respect to those reference frames that are not on its surface as it approaches the critical circumference. The smaller the star gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.
However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting. But as mentioned earlier Einstein's theories indicate time would become infinitely dilated or stop in the reference frames that were not on the surface of a collapsing star as it nears its critical circumference. Therefore, because motion is not possible in a reference frame or an environment where time has stopped, the collapse of a star's surface cannot continue beyond the critical circumference."
I believe this contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.
