Spyman

The "hand part" only acts on the apple as long as there is friction between them. After the hand lets go of the apple, it is unaffected by the hand. There is definately not any mysterious force between the hand and the apple, independent of direction of time. Both left and right parts involves gravity acting on the apple. Gravity is slowing down the apples velocity upwards in one side and then speeding up the apples velocity downwards in the other.

False and so far at best only unproven personal opinion. Handwaving based on rumors until otherwise properly showed. Excuse me, but I won't take your word for it and I seriously doubt anyone else will either. You are welcome.

It is getting somewhat tiresome to repeat myself, Louisiana is in United States of America, where you speak english as a naitive language right? Don't you understand this sentence: "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric" ? 1) It clearly states that it is the ONLY one which can explain the observations. Thus it does exist reasons to choose one over the others. 2) It is NOT some random popular opinion, it is the model accepted by the scientific community. Their judge does have some more weight. Well, so far you have NOT told us about any accepted alternative model at all, not even mentioning the very large amount of evidence you would need for your proposed model. It is not enough that it's not contradicted by any evidence, it also need more evidence that supports it, than any current rival theory has. In other words you need to put forth evidence to prove it to be correct. All you have said so far, (if I don't misunderstand your posts), is that our Universe is finite and therefor must have a gravitational center from where objects are moving outwards through space. Which several people already have told you is wrong. It seems that I was mistaken, I wrongly thought you where here seeking knowledge, so I tried to give the information that was asked. But I also said that: "You are free to subscribe to any model you feel fit to your faith", so I am clearly not interested in trying to convince you against your belief. I have made my points with supported evidence in the links, others who read this thread will be able to read and understand them or ask further questions about details here or in different threads, as they see fit.

I invite you to go back and read my post again, I said: "according to current accepted scientific models there is no known universal gravitational center in space" and that: "The Universe is certainly NOT known to be finite". If I tell you that something is accepted by the science community, all I need to do is support a link to where that is stated. If it is already accepted by the science community then I don't have to prove it for you again, there already exists evidence for the claim. For you on the other hand it is different, if you are going to press any claim that goes against what is accepted by the science community like that there exist a center of gravity for the Universe or that the Universe is finite in size, then you need to start showing us some evidence thereof. Well, the scientific accepted models might of course be wrong and they are likely to be subject to at least minor revisions when our knowledge and technology advance, to fit with new observations and so on, but the fact remains, according to our best knowledge and observations the only models which are able to fully explain what we see includes expanding space by rescaling the metric. There might be a lot of other models but they either lack in scientific evidence or are not able to explain all of these observed phenomenas. You are free to subscribe to any model you feel fit to your faith, but once again, if you are going to put forth any model not accepted by the scientific community then you need to start showing us some evidence thereof.

No, I am not angry. I bolded the main parts of the points to make them more highlighted, so the reading and understanding of my post should be easier. It had nothing to do with shouting or my temper. No, you are wrong, you can't just cherry pick some parts in a theory you like and then neglect the others. If relativity is correct then there wont be any normal matter speeding through space faster than light and if we find out that objects can go faster through space then relativity would need to be changed to reflect those new observations. Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics: 1.The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity), 2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light. The resultant theory agrees with experiment better than classical mechanics, e.g. in the Michelson-Morley experiment that supports postulate 2, but also has many surprising consequences. Some of these are: - Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion. - Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock. - Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer. - Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable. - Maximum speed is finite: No physical object or message or field line may travel faster than light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

So in the twin paradox both with be young? If all frame of reference are real then not only is the mass real (eventually you or a particle should collapse into a black hole if you accelerate close enough to the speed of light) Both frames of reference should be time dilated permanently, no twin paradox? First let's assume that we have three spaceships approaching a common spacestation with different relative speeds. They will all three observe that the spacestations clock will tick with different rate than their own, but they will not be able to agre on how much. What will common sense and a little logic tell us about this situation? Is the values on the spaceships clocks not real, is the only real value the common clock on the spacestation, or does the spacestation have four real times simultaneous, or maybe all values are unreal? Well, as I understand relativity, they all measure real values which means that the relation between the object and the observer affects their readings. The environment for observers and the objects determines how different measurements will be scaled relative each other. What is real in one environment might not be in another, but for an observer in a different state relative us the measurements are as real to him as our measurements are to us. We can use the theory of relativity to transfer observed values between different frames and predict what others will percieve. ---------- Now take the twin paradox, let's assume that they are not twins but triplets and the third is in a second spaceship that is bolted to the one used in the twin paradox. As such two of them make identical journeys and when observing each other their clocks ticks with the same speed, but their first sibling staying on Earth will disagre with their observations. When the first and the third sibling observe the second brother, which one of them will measure the real values? To be fully able to resolve the twin paradox one must be able to distinguish between acceleration and speed, because according to relativity they affect observations differently. If two observers are moving with constant speed with respect to each other then both will measure the others clock to go slow an the situation is symmetrical, but if one is accelerating relative the other the situation will be different. Then they will still disagree on the time but the one accelerating will measure the others clock to be faster and the one not accelerating will measure the accelerated clock to be slower. In the twin paradox the twin leaving in the spaceship must first accelerate when he takes off from Earth to reach a high speed, then he needs to accelerate again during the U-turn to be able to come back to Earth and then finally he needs to accelerate again to slow down and land on Earth. The difference in acceleration makes their relative journeys unsymmetrical and explains the difference in age. If you put the twins on two identical spaceships that takes off in opposite directions with identical acceleration then they will measure different rates off time due to speed only and when they deccelerate to rendezvous the difference in time will decrease proportional with their relative speed towards zero. In this case they will not find the other to be either older or younger when they meet. ---------- If you would be standing on a weighting scale inside a spaceship accelerating with 9.8 m/s2 in the direction from your feet towards your head you would measure the same weight as you normally do here on Earth, independently of the spaceships speed. In your frame of reference you continue to weight as normal, thus no Black Hole.

Let's recap the thread so far: 1) It is NOT commonly believed that Galilean transformations is valid by professional scientists working in the physics area of relativity. The theory of relativity explicitly states that nothing can go faster than light so your arguement that we can't use Galilean transformations is useless, (although it is correct). Therefor you can't use this simple argument to claim that there could exist objects speeding faster than light through space relative us. 2) According to relativity maximum speed is finite, thus NO physical object or message or field line may travel faster than light. Speculating about what would happen or how a hypothetical object would appear to look like in a fantasy world with other laws of nature than what we percieve to have in our Universe can be fun, but it doesn't resolve into anything useful. If nothing can travel through space faster than light then we will never see such an object either, and as such the question whether the light from such an object would be redshifted or not is irrelevant, until it is first succesfully showed that objects are able to break the speed of light through space. 3) According to relativity a hypothetical object that would be moving faster than the speed of light would emit light with IMAGINARY energy. Since this already is a hypothetical situation in an impossible situation, we can't possible know how this light with imaginary energy will interact with normal matter or if it would be possible to detect it at all. If scientists ever will be able to detect objects speeding through space faster than light then relativity will have to be reconsidered, possibly changed or totaly scrapped. Which will make any hypothetical predictions using the theory in its current state likely to be very wrong. 4) According to relativistic doppler redshift there are NO objects moving away from our local point of view faster than light through space. We are not currently observing any object with a relativistic doppler indicating a speed faster than light through space and we will never be either according to relativity, because any value of redshift will indicate a speed through space lower than the speed of light. You can not make any claims on observations of objects speeding through space faster than light according to relativistic doppler redshift. 5) According to cosmological redshift space is expanding, causing distant objects to recede from our local point of view faster than light. General relativity has the feature that space is able to expand or compress, and this change of geometry is not limited to the speed of light. Our current knowledge and observations indicates that space is expanding, and this expansion is causing distant objects to recede from us faster than light. In this model of Universe the distant objects are not moving away from us by speeding through space, instead it is the space between them and us that gets stretched to a greater length. You can not make any claims on observations of objects speeding through space faster than light according to cosmological redshift. Conclusion: Before claiming that objects are able to speed through space faster than light, relativity must first be proved wrong and that is going to be really really hard to too, since it so far has succesfully passed every unambiguous observational and experimental test. I suggest that you bring something new to the table instead of continue to repeat what has been said already.

The effects of relativity are very real and has been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. If you would be in a spaceship moving very fast relative me here on Earth, you would not only seem to be more massive, you would also look shorter and your clock would tick slower than mine. For you in the spaceship the effects would be reversed, everything in the spaceship including yourself would seem normal but when you look down on me, I would appear from your point of view to be more massive, shorter and that it is my clock that ticks slower. Two events, (A & B), at different locations might be seen as happening in different order from our vantage points, I can see that A happens before B, while you will see that B did happen before A. For each and every observers point of view, in every possibly frame of reference, the values will be real, follow the laws of nature and can be used to calculate different outcomes.

Earth radius = 6371000 m. and mass = 5.9736×1024 kg. which reveals an surface acceleration of ~9.82 m/s2. Mass of a hypothetical Black Hole when assumed that aEH = gEarth is ~3.08×1042 kg. (~375000 times heavier than the estimates of Milky Ways Supermassive Black Hole.) Radius for the hypothetical Black Hole's Event Horizon is then ~4.575×1015 m. (~250 times wider than the estimates of Milky Ways Supermassive Black Hole.) Escape velocity at Event Horizon is then ~299792458 m/s. which clearly shows that photons won't be able to escape there, even though the gravitational acceleration is as low as Earth levels. ---------- What you seem to be asking is how there can be an Event Horizon with lower surface acceleration than we have here on Earth and still have an escape velocity higher than speed of light. The gravitational acceleration at a distance from the center of a body is the slope of the gravitational field that the massive object imposes on the space surrounding it. Plot of a two-dimensional slice of the gravitational potential in and around a uniform spherical body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential If the gravitational well gets bigger, it does not only get deeper it gets wider too. When we enlarge such a field by increasing the mass we can still find a distance from the center where the slope has a equal rate, (as compared to the lower mass), but by changing the displacement in the field to a higher altitude the acceleration itself will also be subjected to a slower rate of change. Essentially, even if the acceleration at the Event Horizon of a extremly massive Black Hole, is as low as on Earth, the acceleration will decrease much slower than the acceleration above Earth does, if we continue to take measurements more and more distant from them. A lightray that leaves Earth don't have to struggle against an acceleration of 9.82 m/s2 very far, but a lightray escaping from close above the hypothetical Black Hole's Event Horizon will have to struggle against that acceleration during a very long distance. ---------- Lets take the example above with the hypothetical Black Hole and see what happens when we increase the distance and calculate the acceleration one Earth radius above the surfaces. Acceleration at 6371000 meters above Earth surface is lowered to ~2.46 m/s2. Acceleration at 6371000 meters above BH EH surface is still at ~9.82 m/s2. Conclusion: Black Holes remains Black Holes even if the surface acceleration at the Event Horizon tends to zero when the mass approaches infinity.

Your personal opinion of cosmological phenomenas can't be debated, you need to put forth some scientific arguments...

Your "alternative reference frame" described as "the universes center of gravity" is incorrect if such a place don't exist, and according to current accepted scientific models there is no known universal gravitational center in space. (Which is clearly explained in the links I supported.) There might be a lot of alternatives but: "Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric". (Which is clearly explained in the links I supported.) The evidence is in the model of expansion, if you don't dispute that the Universe is expanding or that it is doing so uniformly, then the only thing left for you is to either show that "the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena" is wrong or to acknowledge the models outcome. If the Universe is expanding then the smoothness of the CMBR is evidence of that the young universe underwent exponential growth. But the best observational evidence of expansion exceeding the speed of light is the measured redshift of distant objects, anything observed with a redshift higher than 2 was receding from Earth faster than the speed of light when those photons were emitted, and we are currently observing a lot of objects with a redshift higher than 2. Inflation In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density. The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10-33 and 10-32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand. As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation). Inflation is a concrete mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) Highest redshifts Currently, the objects with the highest known redshifts are galaxies and the objects producing gamma ray bursts. The most reliable redshifts are from spectroscopic data, and the highest confirmed spectroscopic redshift of a galaxy is that of IOK-1, at a redshift z = 6.96, corresponding to just 750 million years after the Big Bang. Slightly less reliable are Lyman-break redshifts, the highest of which is the lensed galaxy A1689-zD1 at a redshift z = 7.6 and the next highest being z = 7.0 while as-yet unconfirmed reports by Ellis R. et al. from a gravitational lens observed in a distant galaxy cluster may indicate a galaxy with a redshift of z = 10.1. The most distant observed gamma ray burst was GRB 090423, which had a redshift of 8.2. The most distant known quasar, CFHQS J2329-0301, is at z = 6.43. The highest known redshift radio galaxy (TN J0924-2201) is at a redshift z = 5.2 and the highest known redshift molecular material is the detection of emission from the CO molecule from the quasar SDSS J1148+5251 at z = 6.42. Extremely red objects (EROs) are astronomical sources of radiation that radiate energy in the red and near infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. These may be starburst galaxies that have a high redshift accompanied by reddening from intervening dust, or they could be highly redshifted elliptical galaxies with an older (and therefore redder) stellar population. Objects that are even redder than EROs are termed hyper extremely red objects (HEROs). The Cosmic Microwave Background has a redshift of more than 1,000, corresponding to an age of approximately 379,000 years after the Big Bang and a current comoving distance of more than 46 billion light years. Other high-redshift events predicted by physics but not presently observable are the cosmic neutrino background, from about two seconds after the Big Bang, and first light from the oldest Population III stars, not long after atoms first formed and the CMB ceased to be absorbed almost completely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift The Universe is certainly NOT known to be finite, the observable universe from our vantage point here on Earth is finite but we can obviously not know how big the Universe really are outside of our view. If the Earth is assumed to not be placed in the center of the Universe then the size of the Universe must be larger than what we can currently observe. Universe Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the Universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years, and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years, or 8.80 × 1026 metres. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe Observable universe Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "Universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the Universe that is causally disconnected from us, although many credible theories require a total Universe much larger than the observable universe. No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the observable universe corresponds precisely to the physical boundary of the universe (if such a boundary exists); this is exceedingly unlikely in that it would imply that Earth is exactly at the center of the Universe, in violation of the Copernican principle. It is likely that the galaxies within our visible universe represent only a minuscule fraction of the galaxies in the Universe. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, the lower bound for the diameter of the entire Universe could be at least in the range of 1023 to 1026 times as large as the observable universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Yes, at that radius the escape velocity is always c according to eq.3 in post#7. So why do you think that "there would be a point in time where photons and matter would , then have enough escape velocity to reach outside observers" if the Black Hole is allowed to grow sufficient enough? Assuming the same radius for eq.1 and eq.2 does reveal the acceleration where the escape velocity is c for a BH but inserting any mass into the resulting equation do not change the value of the escape velocity itself at that specific radius. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMaybe I have misunderstod you... There is huge difference between Newton and Einstein gravity concerning Black Holes. With Newtonian Mechanics it is fully possible to lower an object down below the calculated radius of escape velocity and then pull it right up again, if the rope and puller is strong enough. According to the modern theory of General Relativity it is not possible to force something out of a Black Hole since the geometry inside the Event Horizon don't have any path to the outside. Is that the missing information you are asking about? A black hole, according to the general theory of relativity, is a region of space from which nothing, including light, can escape. It is the result of the deformation of spacetime caused by a very compact mass. Around a black hole there is an undetectable surface which marks the point of no return, called an event horizon. The defining feature of a black hole is the appearance of an event horizon—a boundary in spacetime through which matter and light can only pass inward towards the mass of the black hole. Nothing, including light, can escape from inside the event horizon. The event horizon is referred to as such because if an event occurs within the boundary, light from that event cannot reach an outside observer, making it impossible to determine if such an event occurred. As predicted by general relativity, the presence of a large mass deforms spacetime in such a way that the paths particles take bend towards the mass. At the event horizon of a black hole, this deformation becomes so strong that there are no paths that lead away from the black hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole A dark star is a theoretical object compatible with Newtonian mechanics that, due to its large mass, has a surface escape velocity that equals or exceeds the speed of light. Whether light is affected by gravity under Newtonian mechanics is questionable but if it were, any light emitted at the surface of a dark star would be trapped by the star’s gravity rendering it dark, hence the name. Einstein’s general theory of relativity has yielded more insight into the nature of objects of extraordinary mass. Such objects by modern understanding would be described in more modern terms as black holes. Unlike a modern black hole, the object behind the horizon is assumed to be stable against collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star_(Newtonian_mechanics) Planetary or lunar escape velocity is sometimes misunderstood to be the speed a powered vehicle (such as a rocket) must reach to leave orbit; however, this is not the case, as the quoted number is typically the escape velocity at the body's surface, and vehicles need never achieve that speed. This barycentric escape velocity is the speed required for an object to leave the planet if the object is simply projected from the surface of the planet and then left without any more kinetic energy input: in practice the vehicle's propulsion system will continue to provide energy after it has left the surface. In fact a vehicle can leave the Earth's gravity at any speed. At higher altitudes, the local escape velocity is lower. But at the instant the propulsion stops, the vehicle can only escape if its speed is greater than or equal to the local escape velocity at that position. As is obvious from the equation, at sufficiently high altitudes this speed approaches 0 as r becomes large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

Maybe the missing piece will be revealed if you try to show at which amount of mass in a Black Hole the calculated escape velocity at its Event Horizon would go below c.

No, if distant objects are moving through space then we can measure their trajectories and find out if their paths coincide. If all objects paths coincide at one single point then that would seem to be a center of the Universe. By current observation, that all distant objects are receding from us in all directions of the skye, we can conclude that the center is very close to Earth. But there is no center of the Universe inside space according to possible explanations of our observations. Your "other available explanations" are not valid accepted models by the scientific community. If you want to make a new model and put your own trust in it then thats fine, but if you want others to belive in it, then it has to be better than the existing one, either by simpler and easier math that gives the same results that the existing one or it must give results that better fits observation. In the latter case you also need to find a way to distinguish which model that is correct and then prove it by predictions and observations. IMHO, your accelerating model seems to be misapplied math and are either not able to give predictions on its own or does result with redshifts that does NOT fit observation. I tried to understand and point out flaws but you didn't want to listen so I finally gave up on the dead horse.

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take the term “big bang” too literally. The big bang was not a bomb that went off in the center of the universe and hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it was an explosion of space itself that happened everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface. http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe. It is also possible for a distance to exceed the speed of light times the age of the universe, which means that light from one part of space generated near the beginning of the Universe might still be arriving at distant locations (hence the cosmic microwave background radiation). These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space Observational evidence Theoretical cosmologists developing models of the universe have drawn upon a small number of reasonable assumptions in their work. These workings have led to models in which the metric expansion of space is a likely feature of the universe. Chief among the underlying principles that result in models including metric expansion as a feature are: - the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous). - the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point"). Scientists have tested carefully whether these assumptions are valid and borne out by observation. Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence - very strong in some cases - that supports these assumptions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have tested the properties of the universe and observation provides compelling confirmation. Sources of this confidence and confirmation include: - Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion. Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point. - In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales. - The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle. - The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems were made. A group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory noticed, by measuring the temperature of a distant intergalactic cloud in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background, that the radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion. Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne). Yet before this evidence, many rejected the Milne viewpoint based on the Mediocrity principle. Additionally, scientists are confident that the theories which rely on the metric expansion of space are correct because they have passed the rigorous standards of the scientific method. In particular, when physics calculations are performed based upon the current theories (including metric expansion), they appear to give results and predictions which, in general, agree extremely closely with both astrophysical and particle physics observations. The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space. This evidence is taken very seriously because the level of detail and the sheer quantity of measurements which the theories predict can be shown to precisely and accurately match visible reality. The level of precision is difficult to quantify, but is on the order of the precision seen in the physical constants that govern the physics of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Observational_evidence

Yes, thats how I interpret it.

There can exist parallel Universes without Black Holes somehow connecting them and there could be Wormholes between different points inside the Universe without other parallel Universes existing. Yes, mass/energy that goes beyond the Event Horizon adds to its gravity, it doesn't disappear.

Distant objects are though to be receding from us FTL by calculating their velocities using a formula for cosmological redshift on the redshift we observe. If you don't think space is expanding and that the objects are actually speeding away from us through space FTL then you will have to use formulas for relativistic doppler to calculate their speed with the observed redshift, which will result in a speed value that is lower than c. If you don't accept that the models for expanding space is true then you can't use their math as proof of objects moving FTL either. Redshifts are attributable to three different physical effects. The first discovered was the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles; an observed redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase of their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift Slightly offtopic but if we assume that cosmological expansion is false and that all distant objects we can observe actually are moving away from us through space, then we can conclude that the Universe seems to have a center and amazingly the Earth is placed in the core very close to it. Similar I can go outside, look up on the sky and conclude that by simple direct observation the Sun is orbiting Earth. In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position. More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe. Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican principle on a cosmological scale. The radiation that pervades the universe was demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

Photons that are "frozen" will never reach us, and the photons that do reach us has moved from the emission spot to us so the image does not remain. Every photon carries a small piece of energy with them and the last image from the object falling through has a limited amount of energy. [EDIT] Also, there is a limit on how redshifted photons we can detect, very close to the Event Horizon they get redshifted to much for observation.

Wouldn't the acceleration at the Event Horizon be: [math] a_{EH}=\frac{c^4}{4Gm} [/math] I don't think there is a "minimum" value since the surface acceleration decreases when mass increases and there is no known "maximum" value of mass for Black Holes. This is correct, we can see the Sun because its current radius is greater than its Schwarzschild radius.

Why is the information inside a Black Hole thought to be attached to the Event Horizon? 1) The Event Horizon is not a physical object, it is a mathematical calculated boundary in spacetime. 2) If we neglect the problem with information inside a Black Hole and only look at General Relativity or Newton Gravity the Event Horizon must shrink and disappear if the mass/energy inside evaporates and vanish. 3) The entropy of a Black Hole are proportional to the surface area of the Event Horizon but both the area and the radius depends primarily on its mass/energy inside. 4) Any information a Black Hole manages to contain is already related to the mass/energy that is swallowed together with it. 5) For an infalling observer that has passed the Event Horizon from any distant observers view, there will be lots of particles in the close neighborhood that seems to be well below the Event Horizon from the distant observers standpoint. All these particles must bring with them a lot of information, they can't leave all information at the Event Horizon and then continue on inward without it. 6) When a Black Hole swallows more mass/energy the size of the Event Horizon grows forcing it to move outwards from the center, which means that any information contained within must be relocated together with it. I can understand that from our point of view, as the distant outside observers, anything on the other side of the Event Horizon are beyond our reach, but the inside of a Black Hole is still also inside the Universe. If objects inside a Black Hole are able to be outside of our observable view, so should information also be able to be outside our observable view. IMHO, I think it would be a simpler solution to let any information continue to be attached to whatever mass/energy that gets swallowed and thereby locate the information to anywhere the mass/energy reside inside the Black Hole. It wouldn't make much difference like solve the information paradox and explain how the information could leak out when a Black Hole evaporates but it would let the Event Horizon change and disappear without loss of information.

Since a Black hole is an object with an Escape Velocity greater than the speed of light, the Schwarzschild radius with Newton gravity is where the Escape Velocity is exactly the speed of light, with General Relativity it's the boundary where all future trajectory paths, for an object placed there, points towards the center. In physics, escape velocity is the speed at which the kinetic energy plus the gravitational potential energy of an object is zero. It is commonly described as the speed needed to "break free" from a gravitational field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity Formula for the Schwarzschild radius [math] r_{s}=\frac{2Gm}{c^2} [/math] where: [math]r_{s}[/math] is the Schwarzschild radius, [math]m[/math] is the mass of the gravitating object, [math]G[/math] is the gravitational constant = 6.67428×10-11 m3kg-1s-2, [math]c[/math] is the speed of light in vacuum = 299792458 m/s. Formula for surface acceleration [math] g=\frac{Gm}{r^2} [/math] where: [math]g[/math] is the acceleration due to gravity, [math]m[/math] is the mass of the gravitating object, [math]G[/math] is the gravitational constant = 6.67428×10-11 m3kg-1s-2, [math]r[/math] is the radius of the gravitating object. Formula for Escape velocity [math] v_{e}=\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} [/math] where: [math]v_{e}[/math] is the Escape velocity, [math]M[/math] is the mass of the gravitating object, [math]G[/math] is the gravitational constant = 6.67428×10-11 m3kg-1s-2, [math]r[/math] is the distance between the center of the body and the point of calculation.

Think of what would happen if the center is so very dense that the light can't escape from an object above it?

Thank You very much for your help! How did you find the link for the first picture? I must be missing something since I have tried with two computers now, the other one with Windows XP Professional without success. Was it with a simple "right-click" and with which operating system?

Sorry, I don't know how to do that, the images are on Wikipedia and I only post the link to them. If a mod can do it and/or someone explain how I could make them smaller when linking to them I would be grateful. [EDIT] @Cap'n Refsmmat, Thanks for the help with fixing the size of the "monster" pictures! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I managed to stumble onto this today while I was looking for something else: (I bolded the interesting part.) Oppenheimer and his co-authors used Schwarzschild's system of coordinates (the only coordinates available in 1939), which produced mathematical singularities at the Schwarzschild radius, in other words some of the terms in the equations became infinite at the Schwarzschild radius. This was interpreted as indicating that the Schwarzschild radius was the boundary of a bubble in which time stopped. This is a valid point of view for external observers, but not for infalling observers. Because of this property, the collapsed stars were called "frozen stars," because an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius. This is a known property of modern black holes, but it must be emphasized that the light from the surface of the frozen star becomes redshifted very fast, turning the black hole black very quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole