Re: A partial black hole?

Bryan Derksen wrote:

> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>> Send it where?  Whatever makes it through the ring singularity on the 
>> first pass still can't get out of the event horizon.
>>
>> It was originally thought that passing through a ring singularity 
>> could take you to a distant patch of spacetime via a white hole -- 
>> that was the original idea behind a "wormhole" -- but that idea has 
>> long since been discredited to the point that "wormhole" means 
>> something else (an Einstein-Rosen bridge).
> 
> Hence "if they come out someplace interesting." I'm not deeply familiar 
> with this stuff, so I ask. But if passing through the ring doesn't get 
> the particles out of the event horizon, which I assume means it still 
> winds up in the singularity eventually, what's the point in drawing a 
> distinction between stuff passing through the center and stuff that 
> doesn't? Or is there actually no point any more now that white holes 
> have been discredited?

Well, keep in mind, ring singularities got brought up as a nitpick of 
what we were talking about, which was basically, "If you fall into the 
event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole you will quickly hit the 
singularity and be utterly destroyed."

When it was pointed out that Kerr geometries have ring singularities, so 
technically one could fall in and miss the singularity.  That passing 
through the ring would cause you to experience infinite blue****ft (which 
would utterly destroy you, too) -- and, psst, you're trapped in an event 
horizon anyway -- made it not a very big distinction.  But I wasn't 
nitpicking, I was responding to a nitpicker.

-- 
Erik Max Francis && max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
  San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
   Divide the fire, and you will the sooner put it out.
    -- Publilius Syrus