"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:dEztg.535564$n11.12956759@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> 
> "Zanket" <zanket@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qOxtg.126925$mF2.71443@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> 
> [ Reformatted to undo top-posting.
>  We don't top-post here. Thanks. ]
> 
>>
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:lnctg.533384$O31.13075603@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>>>
>>> "Zanket" <zanket@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>  news:urJrg.339953$Fs1.306945@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>> A Flaw of General Relativity, a New Metric and Cosmological Implications
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://zanket.home.att.net/
>>>
>>> You say:
>>>   | "In general relativity, above an event horizon of a black hole,
>>>   | an object falling freely  from rest at infinity passes each altitude at
>>>   | a directly measured velocity equal to the escape velocity there (3).
>>>   | If this velocity approached a limit of c then so would escape
>>>   | velocity, in which case escape velocity would always be less
>>>   | than c and then there would be no black holes."
>>>
>>> So you notice that a black hole is defined as something that is
>>> somewhere bounded by places where escape velocity is c.
>>> Then you object that *outside* the boundary the escape
>>> velocity is less than c, so the black hole cannot exist.
>>
>> No, I object that above the boundary the escape velocity approaches a limit of c.
> 
> Apart from your problem with logic (stated before and to which
> I will not come back again since you don't seem to understand
> anyway), your problem with carefully listening to people who
> are kind enough to try to help, and your obvious problem with
> noticing that we do not top-post on this group, you also seem to
> have a very severe problem with the simple concept of limits.

I agree that I misused "limit". I changed it to "asymptote".

> 
> In context ( http://zanket.home.att.net/ ):
>   | "Section 1 shows that directly measured free-fall velocity approaches
>   | a limit of c in a uniform gravitational field. This limit applies
>   | everywhere since a gravitational field is everywhere uniform locally.
>   | Then the directly measured free-fall velocity of an object falling
>   | freely from rest at infinity approaches a limit of c. This was inferred
>   | by means general relativity allows. In general relativity, above an
>   | event horizon of a black hole, an object falling freely  from rest at
>   | infinity passes each altitude at a directly measured velocity equal to
>   | the escape velocity there (3). If this velocity approached a limit of
>   | c then so would escape velocity, in which case escape velocity
>   | would always be less than c and then there would be no black holes."
> 
> Apart from formally dragging a sloppily worded statement (*),
> true everywhere in a uniform (linear) gravitational field, over into a
> spherically symmetric and highly non-uniform field, in which the
> statement only happens to be true for a well defined limit-set of
> locations,

A non-uniform field is everywhere uniform locally. The particle always falls 
within a uniform field, itself within a larger non-uniform field. So when 
the particle's velocity approaches an asymptote of c in a uniform field, it 
automatically does that in a non-uniform field as well. There's no way 
around that.

> in your first (uniform field) situation the sloppy phrase
>        "approaching a limit of c"
> only refers to
>        "objects at infinity"

I don't know why you think it refers to objects at infinity, when I say it's 
a directly measured velocity.

> and is not in any way referring to location, whereas in your second
> (non-uniform) situation the same sloppy phrase
>        "approaching a limit of c"
> primarily refers to
>        "at locations r greater than but arbitrarily close to 2M"
>     and
>        "objects at infinity".
> 
> So, you might want to correct the second part of the last sentence
> to something like:
>    "... in which case locally measured escape velocity would always
>    be less than c above that event horizon (r > 2M)."
> 
> When you do that, you might immediately notice that you can cut
> your article short and perhaps find another hobby.

I can keep the hobby now that I've changed "limit" to "asymptote".

> But yes, you already showed that you don't understand this part,
> and I promised not to come back to this, so you can safely ignore
> it.
> 
> (*) One example of sloppiness is the phrase:
>            "... approaches a limit of c."

It may be sloppy, but I think the meaning is clear. I see plenty of other 
web sites doing the same.

I think the meaning is still clear after correcting "limit" to "asymptote". 
I also see plenty of other web sites using the shorthand "approaches an 
asymptote of <value>".

> Either you say:
>    "it has a limit of c",
> or you say:
>    "it is arbitrarily close to c",
> or you say, like a sloppy engineer would:
>    "it approaches the value of c".
> 
> Dirk Vdm