The shape of a black hole

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it is due to the tidal effects of the moon. Obviously though it can only slow down to the period of the moons orbit.

But the fact that all BHs radiate energy is a reason to say that eventually they will stop rotating.
But who cares if that is billions of years in the future?

I'm not saying that the eventual stop will happen tomor y combine into one singularity - therefore the equations cant possibly rule out my scenario.

"Actually it is due to the tidal effects of the moon. Obviously though it can only slow down to the period of the moons orbit."
My no it isn't comment was directed at this: "but is that a reason to declare that all planets do not rotate?"

"But who cares if that is billions of years in the future?"
Any theoretical physicist will care.

"But who cares if that is billions of years in the future?"
See above.

"I am afraid I am not familiar with the equations, but it seems pretty obvious that your conclusion is not valid. Surely the laws of physics hold just as much inside the event horizon as they do outside it? I thought it was only at the singularity that they had issues. Even if I am wrong, if two black holes are orbiting each other, event horizons and all (that certainly is possible), and the event horizons touch, they surely won't instantaneously combine into one singularity - therefore the equations cant possibly rule out my scenario."
It's a good thing you feel qualified to make a qualitative analysis of highly nonlinear, tensorial, differential equations without knowing anything about the subject. It really is.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Any theoretical physicist will care.

Sure, but the question was 'what is the shape of the even horizon', not 'what will it be billions of years from now?'.

It's a good thing you feel qualified to make a qualitative analysis of highly nonlinear, tensorial, differential equations without knowing anything about the subject. It really is.
It doesn't take detailed knowledge of the quantum equations of gravity to know that the earth is not currently on a collision course with the sun.
It is patently obvious that your claim could not be valid without knowing the first thing about the equations.
Your claim was that the equations dictate that only one singularity can exist inside a given event horizon, but if two singularities are approaching, your claim would imply that as the event horizons touch, the singularities would instantaneously combine. I simply don't believe that that is the case. If you still maintain (with your apparently better knowledge of highly nonlinear, tensorial, differential equations) that that is the case then maybe you would care to explain how this instantaneous combination of singularities (at a distance) takes place? Wouldn't it violate relativity?

Not completely related, but here's an article on black holes merging. Apparently, if two disparate black holes merge the resulting black hole gets kicked off in a new direction at high speed due to conservation of momentum. Neat!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109173835.htm

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sure, but the question was 'what is the shape of the even horizon', not 'what will it be billions of years from now?'.

[b]It's a good thing you feel qualified to make a qualitative analysis of highly nonlinear, tensorial, differential equations without knowing anything about the subject. It really is.
It doesn't take detailed knowledge of the quan ...[text shortened]... ombination of singularities (at a distance) takes place? Wouldn't it violate relativity?[/b]

"t doesn't take detailed knowledge of the quantum equations of gravity to know that the earth is not currently on a collision course with the sun. "
😕. What does that has to do with anything?! 😕 By the way what are these so called quantum equations of gravity?

"It is patently obvious that your claim could not be valid without knowing the first thing about the equations."
😕

"Your claim was that the equations dictate that only one singularity can exist inside a given event horizon, but if two singularities are approaching, your claim would imply that as the event horizons touch, the singularities would instantaneously combine. I simply don't believe that that is the case. If you still maintain (with your apparently better knowledge of highly nonlinear, tensorial, differential equations) that that is the case then maybe you would care to explain how this instantaneous combination of singularities (at a distance) takes place? Wouldn't it violate relativity?"
Here you have some misconceptions and I'll do my best.
First of all is that Nature doesn't have to conform to what you, or I, think and/or believe.

My original claim was posed in the context of BHs that doesn't have a translational motion. And in that case the equations are very clear. only one singularity.

As for BHs that move and collide I didn't say anything because I don't know the first thing about it. Once again let me tell you GR equations are one of the hardest ones out there. I didn't pointed that out with the intention that saying I understand them much better than you (even though that would be a a natural thing to happen as I don't think you are a physicist), but only to point out that taking stands about the behaviour about the behaviour of BHs without a proper understanding of the equations is bound to fail.

The first thing that causes a lot of highly unintuitive behaviours is the fact that the equations are non-linear. Believe a lot of people that are way better than you and me in physics got wrong some qualitative answers to non-linear problems because they relied on natural intuition. As an example I can cite the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam problem. This was studied by those three guys in the first place (it was a simple and almost trivial non-linear problem) and they got it all wrong. Literally all wrong. The behaviour that they got was the complete opposite from what they expected. Of course that later things got worked out but it worked as an cautionary tale when dealing with non-linearities.

I refrain from doing any predictions to what will happen when two BHs collide, but I can tell you that if the two singularities merge in to one singularity SR isn't violated in any way. SR only prohibits faster that light travel when information is being transmitted. Since this will happen inside the event horizon, and no information is transmitted from inside the BH there is no violation. This analysis doesn't mean that the scneario is a certain one it only means that with our current day knowledge it isn't impossible.

Another point that I'd like to mention is that in Physics there are no holy grails. There will come the day that Sr will be violated and some new theory will be needed. That's just how things work in science.

I also made a google search and this is what came up:

As two galaxies merge, their supermassive black holes have to eventually interact. Either through a direct collision, or by spiraling inward until they eventually merge as well.
And that's when things get interesting.
According to simulations made by G.A. Shields from the University of Texas, Austin, and E.W. Bonning, from Yale University, the result is often a powerful recoil. Instead of coming together nicely, the forces are so extreme that one black holes is kicked away at a tremendous velocity.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/29/what-happens-when-supermassive-black-holes-collide/

And this link also provide some information: http://news.cnet.com/Supercomputer-simulates-black-hole-collision/2100-11397_3-6062605.html
Just let me point out this: Earlier trials failed since the equations based on Einstein's general relativity theory were so complicated that they made supercomputers crash. So back in the day even super computers crashed while trying to tackle this difficult problem.

I also found this. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060411080753.htm

But I can't seem to find no definite proposition to what happens to the two different singularities.

Originally posted by adam warlock
😕. What does that has to do with anything?!

I was merely pointing out that knowledge of equations aren't always necessary. You simply cannot tell me that I must be totally ignorant about something because I lack the right equation. I realize now though that I may have misunderstood your comment.

My original claim was posed in the context of BHs that doesn't have a translational motion. And in that case the equations are very clear. only one singularity.
I am not convinced. Do you mean no motion of the whole system, or no motion inside the event horizon? Don't forget that I proposed a binary star scenario which clearly does have motion.

As for BHs that move and collide I didn't say anything because I don't know the first thing about it. Once again let me tell you GR equations are one of the hardest ones out there. I didn't pointed that out with the intention that saying I understand them much better than you (even though that would be a a natural thing to happen as I don't think you are a physicist), but only to point out that taking stands about the behaviour about the behaviour of BHs without a proper understanding of the equations is bound to fail.
You are too convinced that the equations are everything. It seems perfectly obvious to me that if two singularities are on a collision course, there must be at least one point in time when they are both internal to the same event horizon but not one singularity. If your previous claim about the equations not allowing such a scenario is correct then it must mean there is something wrong with your equations.

I refrain from doing any predictions to what will happen when two BHs collide, but I can tell you that if the two singularities merge in to one singularity SR isn't violated in any way. SR only prohibits faster that light travel when information is being transmitted. Since this will happen inside the event horizon, and no information is transmitted from inside the BH there is no violation.
There is still space and distance within the event horizon. If the singularities are say 100km apart inside the event horizon and they instanteously combine, then it would violate relativity regardless of whether or not that information was transmitted to the outside of the event horizon.

Remember also that they do not have to be two super massive black holes, it could easily be a miniature black hole being sucked in by a much large one. At some point their event horizons must touch and merge - and violate your equations.

Originally posted by adam warlock
SR only prohibits faster that light travel when information is being transmitted. Since this will happen inside the event horizon, and no information is transmitted from inside the BH there is no violation.

Isn't information being transmitted within the event horizon? I thought that no information came out, but that doesn't mean that there isn't information being transmitted within it.

Twhitehead has a point. Any equation is, in fact, a simplification because you cannot factor in the whole universe. The equation you mention could perfectly be abstracting from what happens when two singularities are near.

Originally posted by Palynka
Isn't information being transmitted within the event horizon? I thought that no information came out, but that doesn't mean that there isn't information being transmitted within it.

Twhitehead has a point. Any equation is, in fact, a simplification because you cannot factor in the whole universe. The equation you mention could perfectly be abstracting from what happens when two singularities are near.

I really don't know what happens inside of a black hole given those extremes situations.

But what I know is that the equations that model the behavior of black are some of the most hard ones in physics. And I'm just talking about non interacting BHs. I can't possibly imagine what happens when BHs collide. Nor can I give you any sensible answer if the concept of information flow makes any sense under those conditions. Inside the event horizon space and time kinda change places: in our normal Universe we have freedom to move in space, but time always flows in one direction. Inside the even horizon spatially speaking we can only flow into the singularity and time is more or less free.

But let us assume that there is nor information transmission inside a BH. In that case Twhitehead can never say this (and I quote):There is still space and distance within the event horizon. If the singularities are say 100km apart inside the event horizon and they instanteously combine, then it would violate relativity regardless of whether or not that information was transmitted to the outside of the event horizon.. This just makes no sense at all and shows a severe misunderstanding of SR. If there is no transmission of information there is no violation of SR. Roughly we can see information as energy or momentum and if singularities (that are only mathematical entities from all we know) carry no energy nor momentum there isn't a single reason (in the context of SR) why they recombine instantaneously.

As for your second point you and Twhitehead do have a point (this is partially why I use expressions like "present day knowledge" ) but it isn't as strong as you might think. What I'm trying o convey is that trying to use intuition to what happens when BHs collide is very dangerous because from all we know BH behavior is very highly unintuitive. And this because the form of the equations. If anyone thinks they can understand physical theories without dealing with the equations they're incurring at wishful thinking at best and quackery at worst. Nowadays it just can't be done.


Of course I know that there is more to physics than equations but the more that there is very heavily intertwined with the equations. And when the equations are hard the interpretations are also very hard.
I already gave the examples of Fermi-Pasta-Ulam. Fermi and Ulam are physical giants and and Pasta was no slouch either. They analyzed a problem governed by an equation that was mildly noninear but other than that is a very nice equation. At the beginning they made a series of predictions that were very reasonable. But when they did the numerical test the results they got were and the antipodes from what they predicted. And this were people trained as physicists that had a lot of bagage on their hands looking to an reasonably easy (by today's standards) problem. Still they got it all wrong. I don't feel qualified to make any kind of prediction in this situation. From some of the articles I linked this is a problem that made supercomputers crash until very recently.
As another example: on popular level physics books one can read a lot of stuff about cosmology - that GR proves that the Universe must have a start in some finite time, that under certain condition there are bodies so dense that no light can't escape from them, and other such notions. Well when I was studying GR I could see all of that in the equations. So it's not just having equations, it's about interpreting them. And this what really differentiate the Physicists from the physicists. But the situation Twhitehead is describing is well beyond my reach and I suspect is well beyond anybody reach, specially if one isn't fluent in physics.
I also already gave you the example of Hawking radiation. On the popular level press the exposition one sees about what it falls in these two categories:
1 - it is due to a virtual pair of particles
2 - it is due to tunneling effect
When I was studying GR I just couldn't see none of those scenarios flowing from the equations. I was frustrated and searched the web until I found that John Baez page. And whaddyaknow?! None other than John Baez was having the same difficulty than me. Please understand that I'm not saying that Hawking radiation doesn't exist nor I'm saying that the usual picture isn't right. What I'm saying is that I can't interpret that usual picture (and I'm not alone in that)

I also think it is very very important to remember why I made my first comment about just one singularity in a BH:
I also see no reason why two singularities cannot orbit one another (as binary stars do) and thus have a more exotic shaped event horizon.

From what I know of GR a BH can only have a single singularity. If you look at the equations you can easily see why. Maybe with some stranger mathematics things can get a little weirder, but I think that present day knowledge your scenario is impossible.

So you see Twhitehead original sentence (in italics) never mention anything about colliding BHs, thus I assumed he was talking about a non translational BH.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I also think it is very very important to remember why I made my first comment about just one singularity in a BH:
twhitehead:I also see no reason why two singularities cannot orbit one another (as binary stars do) and thus have a more exotic shaped event horizon.

From what I know of GR a BH can only have a single singularity. If you look at the equ ...[text shortened]... ention anything about colliding BHs, thus I assumed he was talking about a non translational BH.

What I don't understand is how you can claim that the equations totally rule out the existence of two singularities inside and event horizon and then later start back tracking and saying the equations are difficult and you were only talking about non translational black holes etc etc, and then still hold on to the original claim that the equations rule out the existence of two singularities inside an event horizon.
I think equations are important, and I fully admit that I do not know the equations in this case, but I am fairly sure that you either do not know the equations either or are mistaken about the results. If you are doing a basic physics problem and your answer has your object going faster than light then you don't announce that equations rule, you go back and check your work.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What I don't understand is how you can claim that the equations totally rule out the existence of two singularities inside and event horizon and then later start back tracking and saying the equations are difficult and you were only talking about non translational black holes etc etc, and then still hold on to the original claim that the equations rule ou ...[text shortened]... aster than light then you don't announce that equations rule, you go back and check your work.

What I don't understand is how you can claim that the equations totally rule out the existence of two singularities inside and event horizon
When I made that statement I was thinking about a single BH. In another words the later scenario of a collision between two BHs that you proposed didn't even cross my mind. So, when you proposed the later scenario and said that it implied I was wrong; I pointed out that even if two singularities unite inside instantaneously inside the event horizon that doesn't mean that SR is violated.

SR is violated if information is transmitted with a speed greater than the speed of light (I'm ignoring other kinds of violations that can occur). We know that no information can be passed from inside the BH to the outside and I also think ()I'm not sure about this though) that the concept of information doesn't make sense inside the event horizon. Thus what we conclude is that Sr is in no way violated here.

And even if it was? So what?! No doubt that someday some experiment will be made that invalidates SR and a more powerful theory will appear that will take the place of SR. That's the way things work in science. Who knows, maybe you were the one who proposed a scenario that might advance our knowledge of the Universe? And I'm not being sarcastic here.

and then still hold on to the original claim that the equations rule out the existence of two singularities inside an event horizon.
I'm still holding on to that claim because of my original frame of mind. Maybe I'm not being very explicit about it but I'll try to be now: considering just one BS that doesn't interact with no other BH you can only have one singularity. Taking into account current day knowledge of course.
When two BHs collide I don't know what to say. Maybe there is an instantaneous merger of singularities maybe there isn't. But what appears to me to be true is that is in no way violated.

If you are doing a basic physics problem and your answer has your object going faster than light then you don't announce that equations rule, you go back and check your work.
This is wrong. Ok partially wrong. There are a lot of situations were a faster than light speed doesn't mean anything. I'll try to give an example and not be too abstract: I don't know if you're familiar with wave motion in the way it is studied by physicists but there are two concepts that are very important. The concept of group velocity and phase velocity.

The phase velocity gives the speed in which wave fronts propagate and the group velocity gives the velocity the energy is transmitted by the wave. If you study electrodynamics there are a lot of situation in which the phase velocity is greater than c but the group velocity is always less than c. Since what matters is the group velocity (remember that information is related to energy) the fact that the phase velocity is greater has no bearing whatsoever. And nobody doublechecks their calculations because everybody knows that phase velocity doesn't carry information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html

Originally posted by adam warlock
When I made that statement I was thinking about a single BH. In another words the later scenario of a collision between two BHs that you proposed didn't even cross my mind.

But if your claim that the equations show that it is impossible to have two singularities inside the same event horizon, then what the scenario is should not be relevant. It should hold for all cases. Earlier in the thread you made the claim "It has been proven for some time that under gravitational collapse a black hole is always spheric in shape." At least there you stated the specific conditions you were talking about. If you had simply said "event horizons are always spherical according to the equations" you would either be obviously wrong, or event horizons would sort of bounce off each other - again, this is an obvious fact that I can deduce without knowledge of the equations.
But even in the 'spherical event horizon' claim you later backed off and admitted that it was not true and that you were really talking about the eventual shape if a black hole is given an infinite amount of time to settle.

So, when you proposed the later scenario and said that it implied I was wrong; I pointed out that even if two singularities unite inside instantaneously inside the event horizon that doesn't mean that SR is violated.

SR is violated if information is transmitted with a speed greater than the speed of light (I'm ignoring other kinds of violations that can occur). We know that no information can be passed from inside the BH to the outside and I also think ()I'm not sure about this though) that the concept of information doesn't make sense inside the event horizon. Thus what we conclude is that Sr is in no way violated here.
Can you provide any references or equations that show or imply that there is no time or space inside an event horizon? I was not aware that the rules of physics are any different inside the event horizon. It is only at the singularity where they 'break down' or are unknown. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I have never heard mention before that time or space are somehow different inside and event horizon. Although they are 'cut off' from the rest of the universe, I see no reason to believe that time goes backwards or information doesn't exist or other weirdness.

And even if it was? So what?! No doubt that someday some experiment will be made that invalidates SR and a more powerful theory will appear that will take the place of SR. That's the way things work in science. Who knows, maybe you were the one who proposed a scenario that might advance our knowledge of the Universe? And I'm not being sarcastic here.
So you would rather trust the equations you have regarding black holes - which have never been observed or tested, and discard as potentially faulty the well known rules and equations of relativity?

I'm still holding on to that claim because of my original frame of mind. Maybe I'm not being very explicit about it but I'll try to be now: considering just one BS that doesn't interact with no other BH you can only have one singularity.
But how can you know that? If you have solved the equations then they should apply for all black holes surely? When during your solving did you input the fact that no interaction with other black holes was taking place?

Taking into account current day knowledge of course.
When two BHs collide I don't know what to say. Maybe there is an instantaneous merger of singularities maybe there isn't. But what appears to me to be true is that is in no way violated.
And maybe the singularities continue to orbit one another within the event horizon just like binary stars. Why do you rule that out when you already admit you do not know the solution?

This is wrong. Ok partially wrong. There are a lot of situations were a faster than light speed doesn't mean anything. I'll try to give an example and not be too abstract: I don't know if you're familiar with wave motion in the way it is studied by physicists but there are two concepts that are very important. The concept of group velocity and phase velocity.

The phase velocity gives the speed in which wave fronts propagate and the group velocity gives the velocity the energy is transmitted by the wave. If you study electrodynamics there are a lot of situation in which the phase velocity is greater than c but the group velocity is always less than c. Since what matters is the group velocity (remember that information is related to energy) the fact that the phase velocity is greater has no bearing whatsoever. And nobody doublechecks their calculations because everybody knows that phase velocity doesn't carry information.
You are clearly misrepresenting my example. I was pointing out that there are times when it is obvious from the answer that the calculation is wrong, and it is usual to assume the calculation is wrong and go back and check it. I fully realize that in some instances the calculation turns out to be right and the intuitive answer turns out to be wrong, but the initial stance should be skepticism. Considering that you fully admit that the equations are extremely difficult, that we have not observed (and by those very equations cannot observe) the actual results in practice, we should be extremely skeptical of the claim if its implications appear to totally violate our intuitive knowledge.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But if your claim that the equations show that it is impossible to have two singularities inside the same event horizon, then what the scenario is should not be relevant. It should hold for all cases. Earlier in the thread you made the claim "It has been proven for some time that under gravitational collapse a black hole is always spheric in shape." At le its implications appear to totally violate our intuitive knowledge.

But if your claim that the equations show that it is impossible to have two singularities inside the same event horizon, then what the scenario is should not be relevant. It should hold for all cases.
No it shouldn't, because the equations I'm referring to are derived assuming a non-interacting BH.
One thing is to derive the existence of objects so massive that they don't permit light to get out of them, and another thing is the dynamics and interactions of those objects.

admitted that it was not true and that you were really talking about the eventual shape if a black hole is given an infinite amount of time to settle.
It doesn't need an infinite amount of time to settle. The time period may be big but it always is finite.

Can you provide any references or equations that show or imply that there is no time or space inside an event horizon?
Why should I do that if I never said anything like that? 😕

I am saying I have never heard mention before that time or space are somehow different inside and event horizon.
I'm not sure what you mean by different but what I said is that time and space exchange nature inside a BH. But don't take my word for it, here's a link: http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/spotlights/changing_places/index.html

So you would rather trust the equations you have regarding black holes - which have never been observed or tested, and discard as potentially faulty the well known rules and equations of relativity?
This is a very hard question (partially because you asked in the wrong way. It's about the equations but the solutions of the equations and their interpretation) to answer directly so I'll answer with an analogy. There was a time when people thought that x^2+2=0 (and other equations whose solutions involve a negative number square root) had no solution because the well known solutions of equations only positive (or null) square roots to be computed. They discard those strange negative root solutions as being false. But there was a time when those solutions proved to be useful during intermediary calculations. Then there a time were considerable extension was allowed to mathematics if those solutions were more allowed. Then there was a time when, for questions of internal consistency of mathematics, those solutions were essential. And finally there came a time were those numbers that up until now were more mathematical than anything were absolutely required for physics to make sense (quantum mechanics essentially needs complex numbers to exist). Take this tale as you like.
Once again theories in physics are never final They are always approximations and refinements.

But how can you know that? If you have solved the equations then they should apply for all black holes surely? When during your solving did you input the fact that no interaction with other black holes was taking place?
Just study GR and hopefully you'll see it. Cause i is pretty explicit. Have you ever done any kind of derivation in physics?

And maybe the singularities continue to orbit one another within the event horizon just like binary stars. Why do you rule that out when you already admit you do not know the solution?
But I don't rue that out. What I ruled out was your categorical claim that that scenario was certain.

You are clearly misrepresenting my example. I was pointing out that there are times when it is obvious from the answer that the calculation is wrong, and it is usual to assume the calculation is wrong and go back and check it. I fully realize that in some instances the calculation turns out to be right and the intuitive answer turns out to be wrong, but the initial stance should be skepticism. Considering that you fully admit that the equations are extremely difficult, that we have not observed (and by those very equations cannot observe) the actual results in practice, we should be extremely skeptical of the claim if its implications appear to totally violate our intuitive knowledge.
I wasn't misrepresenting your example (at least not intentionally). was showing you, and all the others that are reading, that here are a lot of well known situations were faster than light travel exists and yet it poses no problem because no information is being carried. BH physics is highly unintuitive so I give my intuition no credit to what the results may be. Once again I direct you at Fermi-Pasta-Ulam: (this time with a few links: http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin/0411062 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Pasta%E2%80%93Ulam_problem). Let me just quote the wikipedia article:

In the Summer of 1953 Fermi, Pasta, Ulam and Mary Tsingou conducted numerical experiments (i.e. computer simulations) of a vibrating string that included a non-linear term (quadratic in one test, cubic in another, and a piecewise linear approximation to a cubic in a third). They found that the behavior of the system was quite different from what intuition would have led them to expect.

The FPU experiment was important both in showing the complexity of nonlinear system behavior and the value of computer simulation in analyzing systems.

And about skepticism. In science one should always be skeptic and I totally agree with you but you leaving a very important part of dealy with unintuitive results. It's not just checking the calculations. You have to interpret the solution too (and for me this is far more important and is the juice of physics)

Originally posted by twhitehead
I also see no reason why two singularities cannot orbit one another (as binary stars do) and thus have a more exotic shaped event horizon.

Going back to your original comment, it struck me that this is somewhat of a misconception. Sure, the shape of the combined event horizons would be different, but isn't that a bit like saying that a satellite's orbit isn't geostationary because something might hit it or pass sufficiently close?

The orbit is geostationary (by any meaningful definition of the term) as the event horizons are spherical. A possible interaction between two different bodies does not somehow trump that, right? So the spherical shape is still determined by a precise equation and this is why adam is insisting that the equation doesn't factor in possible interactions as that would be trying to factor everything that might affect (meaningfully) an orbit.

Originally posted by adam warlock
No it shouldn't, because the equations I'm referring to are derived assuming a non-interacting BH.
One thing is to derive the existence of objects so massive that they don't permit light to get out of them, and another thing is the dynamics and interactions of those objects.

You just cant seem to keep a straight claim. If your equations specifically deal with a single singularity, it is nonsensical to claim that the equations rule out multiple singularities.

It doesn't need an infinite amount of time to settle. The time period may be big but it always is finite.
I think your biggest problem is you cant admit when you are wrong. You know perfectly well that I don't care how much time is required or whether it is finite, the fact remains that when you claimed that event horizons are always spherical but left out the essential clause that that only applies as a possible future shape, you were wrong.

But I don't rue that out. What I ruled out was your categorical claim that that scenario was certain.
I didn't realize that I made a categorical claim, I merely suggested it as a possibility. It is you that claimed that the equations prove it is impossible - and that is what sparked this whole discussion and has even got you starting a new thread trying to prove the superiority of those equations. Now you seem to be admitting that you don't rule it out even thought the equations do. You just can't seem to get your story straight.

I wasn't misrepresenting your example (at least not intentionally). was showing you, and all the others that are reading, that here are a lot of well known situations were faster than light travel exists and yet it poses no problem because no information is being carried.
I am curious, does matter actually travel faster than light in any of those scenarios? If not, then what does travel faster than light?

Originally posted by Palynka
Going back to your original comment, it struck me that this is somewhat of a misconception. Sure, the shape of the combined event horizons would be different, but isn't that a bit like saying that a satellite's orbit isn't geostationary because something might hit it or pass sufficiently close?

The orbit is geostationary (by any meaningful definiti ...[text shortened]... ions as that would be trying to factor everything that might affect (meaningfully) an orbit.

Your analogy is not the same thing at all. A better analogy would be if someone were to claim that all bodies passing near the earth were in geostationary orbit, or worse if someone was to claim that the equations rule out any other possible orbits.
I was suggesting a stable configuration in which two singularities are orbiting each other. Unless the rules of physics are significantly different inside the event horizon, it seems like it would be a fairly common scenario. If we are talking about stars, we do not simply say 'well I wasn't talking about binary stars, those don't count'. If we are talking about black holes in general and the shapes of event horizons then we shouldn't assume that they all come in one shape and size.
I only brought up the unstable possibility of two black holes colliding when adam made the ridiculous assertion that an event horizon can only contain one singularity because the equations dictate that it is so.
The only reason the discussion has lasted this long is he cant seem to admit when he is wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your analogy is not the same thing at all. A better analogy would be if someone were to claim that all bodies passing near the earth were in geostationary orbit, or worse if someone was to claim that the equations rule out any other possible orbits.
I was suggesting a stable configuration in which two singularities are orbiting each other. Unless the rul ...[text shortened]... only reason the discussion has lasted this long is he cant seem to admit when he is wrong.

LOL, whatever man. If you don't see how ridiculous it is to say that event horizons may not be spherical because of another body interacting with it (the second singularity) then I'll just move on.