Re: A partial black hole?

On 26 veebr, 23:27, Erik Max Francis <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
> > Material captured along the equatorial plane naturally falls to
> > singularity. But material falling along the axis cannot fall to
> > singularity because of axial symmetry.
>
> >>  There is no internal structure,
>
> > There is. The circular singularity and internal horizons to begin
> > with.
>
> You're talking about a Kerr black hole.  I was talking about a
> Schwarzschild black hole.  Not that the Kerr geometry really changes
> anything, since anything falling through the ring singularity _still_
> experiences infinite blue****fting, so is still utterly destroyed.
> You're nitpicking a point that is immaterial to the point that we are
> making, which is this:  If you fall inside the event horizon of a black
> hole, you will be rapidly and utterly destroyed.
>
So, what does an observer approaching a Cauchy horizon see? Tidal
forces stay finite!

> >> it will, and very
> >> rapidly so, fall inward and hit the singularity and be destroyed.
>

> > But suppose that you have two black holes whose event horizons do not
> > intersect, but whose stationary limits do. Nothing, not even light,
> > can move against the rotation of ergosphere. Which way is forward in
> > time in a part of space which is in ergospheres of two black holes?
>
> It depends on the external geometry of the two black holes, obviously --
> how big they are, how fast they are rotating and in what direction, and
> what ****tions of their ergospheres intersect in what way.  You'll end up
> with a different compound static limit and objects within that static
> limit (but still outside each black hole's event horizon) will not be
> able to stay at constant axial angle from either black hole or both.
> I'm not sure what your point is.
>
Then what happens when the event horizon of a black hole enters
ergosphere of another black hole?