If you fall into a blank hole you accelerate until you reach the event horizon when, from an observer's point of view, you cease motion.

To you, falling into the black hole, time continues at its normal rate.

So when you, from your point of view, you cross into the black hole, time will have ended.

But if continual expansion of the universe, er, continues then black holes will, eventually, 'explode', or whatever the word is. So therefore someone falling into the black hole will see it explode when he crosses the event horizon.

Or have I got it all wrong.

I know the theory is that you will be spaghettified when you approach the event horizon, if you fall face down and have a tight pair of underpants on you should be all right.

Indeed.

If you look up at the rest of the universe as you approach the event horizon of a black hole, you would see events in the distant cosmos running faster and faster... but I think what happens next depends on how you interpret infinity.

If time dilation approaches infinity, then light from those distant events would still take time to reach you, so you would have to hover at the event horizon to witness them (impossible btw, as this would require you to travel at c).

If time dilation reaches infinity, then you could witness the infinite future history of the universe in an instant as you cross the event horizon and plummet into singular oblivion.

Meanwhile on Earth we would have a hard time observing your descent into the gravity well, as your movement slows due to time dilation and you fade out of sight due to gravitational red-shift.

Beyond the event horizon... who knows, but my bet is Maximilian would get you!

I think a person falling into a black hole at relativistic speed would perceive their own mass to be normal (likewise they would perceive the passage of time to be normal), but their mass would increase to an observer, say on Earth.

... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw

have a look at the other clips/snippets in that series.... fantastic.

Thanks for the explanation.

Is there any suggestion that the SoL is not the limiting speed inside a singularity?

Byt the way, on the bit quoted, you've got to be pretty cool when plummenting towards a balck hole to casually turn around and look at the rest of the universe.

A Black Hole Star is not a Singularity, it is an extremely dense mass.

If you do the maths then it is easily proven, the fact is the bigger a Black Hole Star is the less dense it becomes, make it big enough and it has less density than water.

The world is filled with misconceptions about what a Black Hole Star is... the reason is the phenomena has been shortened to just 'Black Hole', when I use Black Hole, I mean Black Hole Star... almost everyone outside Cosmology doesn't and the name has become a conceptual error borne of misuse.

The important bit is 'gravitational' singularity, we don't have much of a handle on that aspect of Physics, so the term might be loosely applied.

It is not a singularity, that is an entirely different thing, so it is wrong but they jumped the shark by adding Gravitational, which negates the term singularity.... you can't really have a Singularity of only one thing and ignoring all the rest of the Cosmos.

Further... if it were a Singularity, then you me and the Planet would be in it, that is what a singularity is!

The fact that I'm here outside the Black Hole Star proves it is not a singularity.

You're still there right?

You too are living proof that it is not a singularity... you are part of the experiment into singularities... be proud!

Uh, you've got a link to something that's vaguely credible (i.e. written by actual scientists whose peers don't regard them as total lunatics) to back this stuff up, right?