et pet

So, at the point that GR fails, and even beyond that point, you choose to "stipulate that we can reasonably use GR as a guide" ? Is there any possibility that you can explain why you choose to make such a stipulation, or that you may be able to supply any evidence to support such a stipulation?

fact : beecee said: "In fact any observer inside the BH, as long as tidal gravitational effects have not torn the observer asunder, would actually probably see the whole universe in the form of a circle above his head, due to lensing. I dare say he would be ripped apart before he had any inkling he had crossed a point of no return." I asked if this was fact. beecee replied with a Link : https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/ , nothing at that Link corroborated nothing that beecee Posted as fact. Indeed, the Linked site contains this disclaimer " The creation of this website was supported by the National Science Foundation. Statements made herein are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of any other entity." hope that helps, said beecee. How could that Link possibly help? facts may aspire ? Yes, MigL, the problem is that what beecee Posted is NOT A FACT! It is no more than conjecture, or speculation, or a subjective interpretation of a somewhat misunderstood understanding of a Theoretical construct. From my understanding of the Theory of Relativity, everything inside the Black Hole - including Light - is moving at the very least, at the speed of Light towards some "center". There would be no light or photons that could escape the intense pull of gravity so as to be able to be seen by any eye or receptor. What Janus Posted : "One of the bizarre things that occurs after crossing the the event horizon is that time and space switch roles. So describing what you would "see" is a bit difficult. For example, outside of a black hole, if we are looking at a point 1 light hr away, we can only see, at any given moment, events that occurred 1 hr ago. Inside the event horizon, If you are looking at a point further out from the center than you are, at the same 1 light hr away, you would see everything that occurs at that point between 1 hr in the past to 1 hr in the future, all at once." And also alluded to by Strange : "Yes, most descriptions gloss over this. For perhaps obvious reasons. It is hard to comprehend how that might appear to our senses and we will probably never know." Both of these views are much more in line with the current interpretation of Relativity. MigL, there may indeed be students visiting this site to actually learn some science. MigL, there is not currently, and most likely never will be any "fact" concerning what one would "see" inside a Black Hole. MigL, the only thing close to being attributed as fact would be what Janus, Strange and myself surmise - We Do Not Know And Might Never Know - what one would "see" inside a Black Hole!

ad hominem , much? " facts may aspire ", So, are you trying to attribute a human trait, the conscious ability to aspire, to a fact? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspire

Digging yourself deeper. Maybe you should have began your statement : According to Theory, or my interpretation of the Theory of what one might see BTW : the Link you provided : https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html , contains this disclaimer " The creation of this website was supported by the National Science Foundation. Statements made herein are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of any other entity." re, your : "Hope that helps." , "facts may aspire" means exactly what?

This seems to conflict with this "fact" that was Posted earlier?

Fact?

Then you should be able to get quite a bit from this article... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38366-w Link to the Full paper published this month in Nature's Scientific Reports journal : "In Situ Bioprinting of Autologous Skin Cells Accelerates Wound Healing of Extensive Excisional Full-Thickness Wounds" : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38366-w

1 Kilogram Per 1 Square Meter

How about : cum hoc ergo propter hoc ?

I am not "trying to interpret" what "Dawkins said". The linked content is not "trying to interpret" what "Dawkins said". Could you please provide "QUOTES" of their misinterpreted account of what "Dawkins said" ?

No. The Linked content : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority , made no interpretation of Dawkin's view on the theory of evolution. " Appeal to Authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit) Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority. Logical Form: According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true. Therefore, Y is true. Example #1: Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true. Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory. " https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority another Logical Fallacy : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/225/Contextomy " Contextomy (also known as: fallacy of quoting out of context, quoting out of context) Description: Removing a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. " The full passage from : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority " Registered User Comments - question from C. Loftus Saturday, September 29, 2018 - 02:57:36 PM Would it be considered appeal to authority if you referred to a consensus among multiple authorities? Example: Most experts in the field of Y agree that X is true, so X is true - answer from Bo Bennett, PhD Saturday, September 29, 2018 - 03:33:04 PM Yes. However, it would not be fallacious if the conclusion were slightly different: Most experts in the field of Y agree that X is true, so X it is reasonable to accept X as true. Of course, the expertise has to be properly established. For example, if most experts in Tarot card readings think the cards tell the future, it is NOT reasonable to accept it as true. Basically, expert opinion is (or should be) a shortcut for obtaining legitimate evidence. So the assumption is that the experts obtained their evidence for their expert opinion legitimately. "

Mine was. I made no interpretation of Dawkins. No. I quoted : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

some might think that it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of any theory being true or false A couple of Logical Fallacies : Appeal to False Authority. " Appeal to False Authority (also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority) Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Also see the appeal to authority." - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/244/Appeal-to-False-Authority Appeal to Authority " Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority." " - http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/appeal_to_authority_examples/430/

Are you sure of that, StringJunky? What you Posted seems more like the the definition of an Appeal to False Authority. " Appeal to False Authority (also known as: appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority) Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Also see the appeal to authority." - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/244/Appeal-to-False-Authority A couple of definitions : Appeal to Authority " Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority." " - http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/appeal_to_authority_examples/430/ " Appeal to Authority argumentum ad verecundiam (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit) Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority. Logical Form: According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true. Therefore, Y is true. Example #1: Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true. Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory. " - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

I thought that you had more or less covered the Orbital Mechanics (?) side of the coin quite commendably, Janus. I was focusing more on this : "Actually the helium balloon idea is good, I can just jet pack to space after I reach that distance " Some years back I remember some talk of having to switch from Jet engines to actual Rockets to get above a certain altitude. Maybe somewhere around 40 miles, 200,000 ft ? In your previous Post about the fictional "Elysium" in (LEO), you had "put it out at 500 km". ~ 300 miles? I guess I am guilty of more or less accepting and agreeing with the previous Posts and was simply addressing that one small aspect that had NOT been broached yet. Is any kind of Jet engine operational out to 100 miles...200 miles...300 miles?

Hey, fredreload, I will most likely be told that I am wrong about this, but a "jet pack" will most likely have a Maximum Operational Ceiling because it needs oxygen to Operate. I am fairly certain that no just plain "jet pack" will allow you to or enable you to actually reach "space". Some 20 or so years ago, I heard reports that a Soviet Pilot had flown a Soviet Jet aircraft to somewhere around 120,000 -125,000 feet. I believe that it was reported to be one of the Soviet Mig series of Fighter Jets. This information was and is totally anecdotal - I was neither involved in the Flight, nor did I have direct access to any telemetry to verify the Flight. I am fairly certain, fredreload, some other Members will soon come along to either correct or further expound this information. Interesting idea, by the way!

Yes John Cuthber, I read every Post in its entirety. What I am fairly sure that you said was : "You seem not to have noticed that, while he said it was a quote, he didn't say from whom. Einstein said something similar- but since he got the grammar right that can't be who Beecee quoted. With all due respect to Einstein; he's dead. It doesn't matter exactly how he said it, or even if he didn't." Part of my reply : speaking of Respect, John, I refuse to Denigrate, Belittle, Berate or Accuse Albert Einstein of being Wrong , and one of the reasons is simply because he is deceased and cannot defend himself! ...okay... Albert Einstein got the grammar right, right? Someone else's possible quote of possibly someone else's words, did not have the grammar right, right? So, that someone else could not possibly have been Quoting Albert Einstein, right? So possibly...just possibly...one or the other might possibly have not been right, right? Well, John, there is no way that a proven font of knowledge of such high stature could possibly be wrong, right? Ergo, that only left the other one... At that point, John, it was out of my deep respect for the deceased, that I refused to Denigrate, Belittle, Berate or Accuse Albert Einstein of being Wrong. So no, you didn't say Einstein was wrong. And neither did I.

Really, not worth thinking about you at all, other than maybe...: Eye wooden wanna-be yeah in the mid doll of duh night, wall kin two an Al E., wall kin too mize ight. Noah wooden wanna-be use on this tree tall a loan, have TUE reel E knead me, save a Bro kin Bough N. Si they's ain't uh Lot O pea pull that eye reel E. lye cuh Ain't uh Lot of reeze and it ano panacea, attain an other mill yeah an eye still wooden wanna-be yeah! Weight in 4 the seas and onomatopoeia, if use a grease say I...aye... ...eye's till wooden wanna-be yeah!

That is entirely up to you, Strange. I thought it was unnecessarily off topic when you initiated it, but then...you know...with me always being wrong... Well, I figured you would never bring up something that was unnecessarily off topic...and this is scienceforums...so... Anyways, Strange, are you going to drop it now?

Well...like I said : as you are ofttimes quick to point out, Strange, I can only be wrong. At any rate, I did NOT criticize John for that! He made no Quote without Citing the source. Why, may I humbly ask, Strange, do you think that beecee should be criticized for that? And, you know, if you are being really pedantic, could you Cite an example? btw : you seem to be able to quite quickly see, in any of my Postings, that which you judge me to be wrong about , and yet at the same time you seem not to be able to see any queries that I proffer...?

Well, as you are ofttimes quick to point out, Strange, I can only be wrong. Not sure why you would refer to 2 seconds on google as work, though. Actually, spending 2 seconds on google to properly Cite a famous Quote by Albert Einstein should be considered compulsory or de rigueur. You know like mandatory, even, aye? Wouldn't you agree? But...this is scienceforums, Strange, so I am not sure that many Members appreciate it at all. ...or when those people that only have an over-inflated ego and very mediocre subjective understanding cannot help but belittle and berate anyone that they perceive to actually have a more proper or better understanding than them... Again, wouldn't you agree, Strange?

In all actuality, John Cuthber, most Cites of that famous Albert Einstein Quote have it as "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler"- https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ - from a quick and easy site to Cite : https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein : "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience. "On the Method of Theoretical Physics" The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933); also published in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April 1934), pp. 163-169., p. 165. [thanks to Dr. Techie @ www.wordorigins.org and JSTOR] There is a quote attributed to Einstein that may have arisen as a paraphrase of the above quote, commonly given as “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” or “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” See this article from the Quote Investigator for a discussion of where these later variants may have arisen. The original quote is very similar to Occam's razor, which advocates that among all hypotheses compatible with all available observations, the simplest hypothesis is the most plausible one. The aphorism "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" is normally taken to be a warning against too much simplicity and emphasizes that one cannot simplify things to a point where the hypothesis is no more compatible with all observations. The aphorism does not contradict or extend Occam's razor, but rather stresses that both elements of the razor, simplicity and compatibility with the observations, are essential. The earliest known appearance of Einstein's razor is an essay by Roger Sessions in the New York Times (8 January 1950)[8], where Sessions appears to be paraphrasing Einstein: “I also remember a remark of Albert Einstein, which certainly applies to music. He said, in effect, that everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler.” Another early appearance, from Time magazine (14 December 1962)[9]: “We try to keep in mind a saying attributed to Einstein—that everything must be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.” - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein Heck, John Cuthber, 2 seconds on google gets you : https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-did-Einstein-mean-by-Everything-should-be-made-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler ; https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ ; https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_103652 ; https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/374887/meaning-of-make-things-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler ; http://wiki.c2.com/?EinsteinPrinciple ; and those are just a few from the first page of results that you get : https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Something+should+be+explained+as+simple+as+possible%2C+but+not+any+simpler".&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 So, John Cuthber, it should be fairly simple for anyone to simply and properly Cite that Quote(pun intended!), but this is scienceforums, so... Again, as I opined in my previous Post : Seriously, though, it makes sense that if you honestly cannot explain something fairly simply, you probably do not truly and fully understand it.

There are a few similar quotes ofttimes attributed to Albert Einstein and others : "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." ; (attributed to Ernest Rutherford when Rutherford said) "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." ; “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” ; “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” - from : https://interestingengineering.com/13-inspiring-einstein-quotes-never-actually-said-by-einstein , and ; https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/35209/which-of-these-quotes-are-actually-einsteins-if-any Not sure that Albert Einstein actually said any of those phrases "verbatim"... Seriously, though, it makes sense that if you honestly cannot explain something fairly simply, you probably do not truly and fully understand it.

42

With all due respect, Strange, that may not be a given. Any entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again", obviously would not be restrained by the physical rules or laws of our/this Universe. That being the case, we honestly could not conceive of or even imagine what the total all encompassing extent of those abilities might allow that entity to effect upon our/this Universe. I am fairly certain that it was Arthur C. Clarke that stated : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So, no Strange, that need not necessarily be a given. An entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again" might just also have the ability to make it run exactly the same. Maybe even over and over, repeatedly...