SWaB: does gravitational redshift slow BH growth?

[notFritzArgelander]

Can I say in QM, since we can only sensibly discuss quantities that are measurable, if the hovering observer decides to end the experiment after the number of photons received from the in-faller asymptotically approaches zero for a given detector sensitivity, then the last photon measured by the hovering observer will happen in a finite time according to the hovering observer’s clock?

No. The asymptotic approach to zero takes an infinite time. That's what asymptotic approach to zero as time goes to infinity means. Of course the hovering observer can get tired of waiting for infinity.

How many ways can you ask the same question expecting a different answer?

Wouldn’t infinite duration imply the mass distribution of the singularity is more like an eggshell than a point mass?

I see no physical reasoning why that would be so. A singularity is a point where the theory fails. So nothing meaningful can be said of it.

[metastable]

But you’ve implied mass takes infinite time according to outside observers to reach the event horizon, therefore wouldn’t it follow there hasn’t been enough time since the origin of the universe for any in-falling matter to actually reach the event horizon, leading to a situation where the mass than has fallen towards the black hole could be thought of as being “stuck” just outside the horizon, forming a shell of matter? If it takes infinite time to cross the horizon, how would one expect that mass to cross the horizon & incorporate into a point mass?

[notFritzArgelander]

But you’ve implied mass takes infinite time according to outside observers to reach the event horizon, therefore wouldn’t it follow there hasn’t been enough time since the origin of the universe for any in-falling matter to actually reach the event horizon, leading to a situation where the mass than has fallen towards the black hole could be thought of as being “stuck” just outside the horizon, forming a shell of matter? If it takes infinite time to cross the horizon, how would one expect that mass to cross the horizon & incorporate into a point mass?

If you had read the link in post #1 you wouldn't need to ask this. I've implied nothing. I've stated that a distant observer sees a falling approximately massless observer take an infinite time to reach the already existing event horizon of a BH. That's what the equations say. The equations also say that if the incoming observer is attached to sufficient mass a new improved larger event horizon forms. But all this was in the link in post #1. Reread it.

[metastable]

Even with Doppler and gravitational red-shifting effects ignored, considering the relative velocity between the hovering observer and in-faller near the horizon, won’t the relativistic aberration reduce the statistical likelihood of the hoverer intercepting any photons emitted by the in-faller to negligible within a quite finite amount of time on the hoverer’s clock, due to the headlight effect?

[notFritzArgelander]

Even with Doppler and gravitational red-shifting effects ignored,

Making everything that follows physically meaningless.

considering the relative velocity between the hovering observer and in-faller near the horizon,

Which is nearly zero in the distant observers frame.

won’t the relativistic aberration reduce the statistical likelihood of the hoverer intercepting any photons emitted by the in-faller to negligible within a quite finite amount of time on the hoverer’s clock, due to the headlight effect?

Nonsense conclusions result from nonsense premises. It is utterly illogical verbal purée and completely disordered thinking to simultaneously ignore relativity and then invoke it.

No.

Let me suggest trolling
https://www.physicsforums.com/

or

https://physics.stackexchange.com/

instead.

Mods please put this thread out of its misery?

[Gordon]

Topic locked per OP's request.