Can an object tethered to a spaceship be pulled out of event horizon?Another layman blackhole question, pulling one end of a string out from behind the event horizonWhat happens if you let a cable roll slip into a black hole?What happens if I slowly lower a dangling object into a black hole?Event Horizon violability?Frame dragging around a black holeIs it possible for one black hole to pull an object out of another black hole?Can something (again) ever fall through the event horizon?How high can a light-beam (or apple) travel when pointed (thrown) out from the event horizon?Why won't the following hypothetical scenario succeed in pulling an object free from a black hole's event horizon?Can anything orbit a black hole with dipping under the event horizon?

Is there an in-universe explanation given to the senior Imperial Navy Officers as to why Darth Vader serves Emperor Palpatine?

How to determine algebraically whether an equation has an infinite solutions or not?

Which meaning of "must" does the Slow spell use?

Why was this commercial plane highly delayed mid-flight?

If I said I had $100 when asked, but I actually had $200, would I be lying by omission?

Count the number of triangles

Why did Lucius make a deal out of Buckbeak hurting Draco but not about Draco being turned into a ferret?

What stops you from using fixed income in developing countries?

How could a self contained organic body propel itself in space

Why is there not a willingness from the world to step in between Pakistan and India?

How to force GCC to assume that a floating-point expression is non-negative?

Can I use coax outlets for cable modem?

What was the point of "Substance"?

Why does the `ls` command sort files like this?

Are there any to-scale diagrams of the TRAPPIST-1 system?

Can I take a boxed bicycle on a German train?

What's the point of fighting monsters in Zelda BoTW?

How many petaflops does it take to land on the moon? What does Artemis need with an Aitken?

Can someone identify this unusual plane at airport?

Book featuring a child learning from a crowdsourced AI book

Will removing shelving screws from studs damage the studs?

How to emphasise the insignificance of someone/thing – besides using "klein"

Time difference between banns and marriage

Why does a sticker slowly peel off, but if it is pulled quickly it tears?



Can an object tethered to a spaceship be pulled out of event horizon?


Another layman blackhole question, pulling one end of a string out from behind the event horizonWhat happens if you let a cable roll slip into a black hole?What happens if I slowly lower a dangling object into a black hole?Event Horizon violability?Frame dragging around a black holeIs it possible for one black hole to pull an object out of another black hole?Can something (again) ever fall through the event horizon?How high can a light-beam (or apple) travel when pointed (thrown) out from the event horizon?Why won't the following hypothetical scenario succeed in pulling an object free from a black hole's event horizon?Can anything orbit a black hole with dipping under the event horizon?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








3












$begingroup$


An object cannot escape the event horizon by catapulting it outside the black hole. However, what if instead of relying on escape velocity, the object was tethered to a ship orbiting well outside the event horizon? The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than $c$, but rather can be pulled slowly.



Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough. (Or it's just a loose end). Would such an object be pulled-out of the event horizon?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    How would an object “catapult” itself?
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    9 hours ago


















3












$begingroup$


An object cannot escape the event horizon by catapulting it outside the black hole. However, what if instead of relying on escape velocity, the object was tethered to a ship orbiting well outside the event horizon? The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than $c$, but rather can be pulled slowly.



Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough. (Or it's just a loose end). Would such an object be pulled-out of the event horizon?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    How would an object “catapult” itself?
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    9 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$


An object cannot escape the event horizon by catapulting it outside the black hole. However, what if instead of relying on escape velocity, the object was tethered to a ship orbiting well outside the event horizon? The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than $c$, but rather can be pulled slowly.



Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough. (Or it's just a loose end). Would such an object be pulled-out of the event horizon?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




An object cannot escape the event horizon by catapulting it outside the black hole. However, what if instead of relying on escape velocity, the object was tethered to a ship orbiting well outside the event horizon? The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than $c$, but rather can be pulled slowly.



Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough. (Or it's just a loose end). Would such an object be pulled-out of the event horizon?







general-relativity black-holes event-horizon string






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago









Qmechanic

113k13 gold badges221 silver badges1339 bronze badges




113k13 gold badges221 silver badges1339 bronze badges










asked 11 hours ago









Christmas SnowChristmas Snow

1364 bronze badges




1364 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    How would an object “catapult” itself?
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    9 hours ago

















  • $begingroup$
    How would an object “catapult” itself?
    $endgroup$
    – G. Smith
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
    $endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    9 hours ago
















$begingroup$
How would an object “catapult” itself?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
How would an object “catapult” itself?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
"Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
"Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic
9 hours ago





$begingroup$
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic
9 hours ago











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















12













$begingroup$

In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.



All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.



The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$






















    3













    $begingroup$

    The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.



    You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.



    Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.



    Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.



    (In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$






















      2













      $begingroup$


      The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
      rather can be pulled slowly.




      For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).



      The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.



      To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "151"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f499053%2fcan-an-object-tethered-to-a-spaceship-be-pulled-out-of-event-horizon%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        12













        $begingroup$

        In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.



        All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.



        The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



















          12













          $begingroup$

          In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.



          All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.



          The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$

















            12














            12










            12







            $begingroup$

            In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.



            All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.



            The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.



            All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.



            The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 10 hours ago

























            answered 10 hours ago









            G. SmithG. Smith

            20.9k1 gold badge36 silver badges68 bronze badges




            20.9k1 gold badge36 silver badges68 bronze badges


























                3













                $begingroup$

                The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.



                You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.



                Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.



                Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.



                (In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



















                  3













                  $begingroup$

                  The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.



                  You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.



                  Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.



                  Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.



                  (In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$

















                    3














                    3










                    3







                    $begingroup$

                    The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.



                    You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.



                    Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.



                    Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.



                    (In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.



                    You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.



                    Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.



                    Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.



                    (In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 2 hours ago

























                    answered 2 hours ago









                    The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer

                    6,52312 silver badges30 bronze badges




                    6,52312 silver badges30 bronze badges
























                        2













                        $begingroup$


                        The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
                        rather can be pulled slowly.




                        For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).



                        The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.



                        To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$



















                          2













                          $begingroup$


                          The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
                          rather can be pulled slowly.




                          For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).



                          The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.



                          To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$

















                            2














                            2










                            2







                            $begingroup$


                            The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
                            rather can be pulled slowly.




                            For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).



                            The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.



                            To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$




                            The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
                            rather can be pulled slowly.




                            For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).



                            The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.



                            To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 8 hours ago









                            Hal HollisHal Hollis

                            1,6963 silver badges10 bronze badges




                            1,6963 silver badges10 bronze badges






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f499053%2fcan-an-object-tethered-to-a-spaceship-be-pulled-out-of-event-horizon%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу

                                Israel Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Geografie | Politică | Demografie | Educație | Economie | Cultură | Note explicative | Note bibliografice | Bibliografie | Legături externe | Meniu de navigaresite web oficialfacebooktweeterGoogle+Instagramcanal YouTubeInstagramtextmodificaremodificarewww.technion.ac.ilnew.huji.ac.ilwww.weizmann.ac.ilwww1.biu.ac.ilenglish.tau.ac.ilwww.haifa.ac.ilin.bgu.ac.ilwww.openu.ac.ilwww.ariel.ac.ilCIA FactbookHarta Israelului"Negotiating Jerusalem," Palestine–Israel JournalThe Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search of a Semitic Past„Arabic in Israel: an official language and a cultural bridge”„Latest Population Statistics for Israel”„Israel Population”„Tables”„Report for Selected Countries and Subjects”Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone„Distribution of family income - Gini index”The World FactbookJerusalem Law„Israel”„Israel”„Zionist Leaders: David Ben-Gurion 1886–1973”„The status of Jerusalem”„Analysis: Kadima's big plans”„Israel's Hard-Learned Lessons”„The Legacy of Undefined Borders, Tel Aviv Notes No. 40, 5 iunie 2002”„Israel Journal: A Land Without Borders”„Population”„Israel closes decade with population of 7.5 million”Time Series-DataBank„Selected Statistics on Jerusalem Day 2007 (Hebrew)”Golan belongs to Syria, Druze protestGlobal Survey 2006: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in FreedomWHO: Life expectancy in Israel among highest in the worldInternational Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011: Nominal GDP list of countries. Data for the year 2010.„Israel's accession to the OECD”Popular Opinion„On the Move”Hosea 12:5„Walking the Bible Timeline”„Palestine: History”„Return to Zion”An invention called 'the Jewish people' – Haaretz – Israel NewsoriginalJewish and Non-Jewish Population of Palestine-Israel (1517–2004)ImmigrationJewishvirtuallibrary.orgChapter One: The Heralders of Zionism„The birth of modern Israel: A scrap of paper that changed history”„League of Nations: The Mandate for Palestine, 24 iulie 1922”The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948originalBackground Paper No. 47 (ST/DPI/SER.A/47)History: Foreign DominationTwo Hundred and Seventh Plenary Meeting„Israel (Labor Zionism)”Population, by Religion and Population GroupThe Suez CrisisAdolf EichmannJustice Ministry Reply to Amnesty International Report„The Interregnum”Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs – The Palestinian National Covenant- July 1968Research on terrorism: trends, achievements & failuresThe Routledge Atlas of the Arab–Israeli conflict: The Complete History of the Struggle and the Efforts to Resolve It"George Habash, Palestinian Terrorism Tactician, Dies at 82."„1973: Arab states attack Israeli forces”Agranat Commission„Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?”original„After 4 Years, Intifada Still Smolders”From the End of the Cold War to 2001originalThe Oslo Accords, 1993Israel-PLO Recognition – Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat – Sept 9- 1993Foundation for Middle East PeaceSources of Population Growth: Total Israeli Population and Settler Population, 1991–2003original„Israel marks Rabin assassination”The Wye River Memorandumoriginal„West Bank barrier route disputed, Israeli missile kills 2”"Permanent Ceasefire to Be Based on Creation Of Buffer Zone Free of Armed Personnel Other than UN, Lebanese Forces"„Hezbollah kills 8 soldiers, kidnaps two in offensive on northern border”„Olmert confirms peace talks with Syria”„Battleground Gaza: Israeli ground forces invade the strip”„IDF begins Gaza troop withdrawal, hours after ending 3-week offensive”„THE LAND: Geography and Climate”„Area of districts, sub-districts, natural regions and lakes”„Israel - Geography”„Makhteshim Country”Israel and the Palestinian Territories„Makhtesh Ramon”„The Living Dead Sea”„Temperatures reach record high in Pakistan”„Climate Extremes In Israel”Israel in figures„Deuteronom”„JNF: 240 million trees planted since 1901”„Vegetation of Israel and Neighboring Countries”Environmental Law in Israel„Executive branch”„Israel's election process explained”„The Electoral System in Israel”„Constitution for Israel”„All 120 incoming Knesset members”„Statul ISRAEL”„The Judiciary: The Court System”„Israel's high court unique in region”„Israel and the International Criminal Court: A Legal Battlefield”„Localities and population, by population group, district, sub-district and natural region”„Israel: Districts, Major Cities, Urban Localities & Metropolitan Areas”„Israel-Egypt Relations: Background & Overview of Peace Treaty”„Solana to Haaretz: New Rules of War Needed for Age of Terror”„Israel's Announcement Regarding Settlements”„United Nations Security Council Resolution 497”„Security Council resolution 478 (1980) on the status of Jerusalem”„Arabs will ask U.N. to seek razing of Israeli wall”„Olmert: Willing to trade land for peace”„Mapping Peace between Syria and Israel”„Egypt: Israel must accept the land-for-peace formula”„Israel: Age structure from 2005 to 2015”„Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 306 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 188 countries, 1990–2013: quantifying the epidemiological transition”10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61340-X„World Health Statistics 2014”„Life expectancy for Israeli men world's 4th highest”„Family Structure and Well-Being Across Israel's Diverse Population”„Fertility among Jewish and Muslim Women in Israel, by Level of Religiosity, 1979-2009”„Israel leaders in birth rate, but poverty major challenge”„Ethnic Groups”„Israel's population: Over 8.5 million”„Israel - Ethnic groups”„Jews, by country of origin and age”„Minority Communities in Israel: Background & Overview”„Israel”„Language in Israel”„Selected Data from the 2011 Social Survey on Mastery of the Hebrew Language and Usage of Languages”„Religions”„5 facts about Israeli Druze, a unique religious and ethnic group”„Israël”Israel Country Study Guide„Haredi city in Negev – blessing or curse?”„New town Harish harbors hopes of being more than another Pleasantville”„List of localities, in alphabetical order”„Muncitorii români, doriți în Israel”„Prietenia româno-israeliană la nevoie se cunoaște”„The Higher Education System in Israel”„Middle East”„Academic Ranking of World Universities 2016”„Israel”„Israel”„Jewish Nobel Prize Winners”„All Nobel Prizes in Literature”„All Nobel Peace Prizes”„All Prizes in Economic Sciences”„All Nobel Prizes in Chemistry”„List of Fields Medallists”„Sakharov Prize”„Țara care și-a sfidat "destinul" și se bate umăr la umăr cu Silicon Valley”„Apple's R&D center in Israel grew to about 800 employees”„Tim Cook: Apple's Herzliya R&D center second-largest in world”„Lecții de economie de la Israel”„Land use”Israel Investment and Business GuideA Country Study: IsraelCentral Bureau of StatisticsFlorin Diaconu, „Kadima: Flexibilitate și pragmatism, dar nici un compromis în chestiuni vitale", în Revista Institutului Diplomatic Român, anul I, numărul I, semestrul I, 2006, pp. 71-72Florin Diaconu, „Likud: Dreapta israeliană constant opusă retrocedării teritoriilor cureite prin luptă în 1967", în Revista Institutului Diplomatic Român, anul I, numărul I, semestrul I, 2006, pp. 73-74MassadaIsraelul a crescut in 50 de ani cât alte state intr-un mileniuIsrael Government PortalIsraelIsraelIsraelmmmmmXX451232cb118646298(data)4027808-634110000 0004 0372 0767n7900328503691455-bb46-37e3-91d2-cb064a35ffcc1003570400564274ge1294033523775214929302638955X146498911146498911

                                Черчино Становништво Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију46°09′29″ СГШ; 9°30′29″ ИГД / 46.15809° СГШ; 9.50814° ИГД / 46.15809; 9.5081446°09′29″ СГШ; 9°30′29″ ИГД / 46.15809° СГШ; 9.50814° ИГД / 46.15809; 9.508143179111„The GeoNames geographical database”„Istituto Nazionale di Statistica”Званични веб-сајтпроширитиуу