MigL

No, you're confusing speed with time. I you could see inside a spaceship moving at an appreciable fraction of c, you would see all motion inside the spaceship as well as their clocks slow down. The spaceship and anything moving along with it, is one frame, while you, stationary on the earth, are another frame.

It is the same 'mechanism' for any gravitational time dilation. From the frame of a distant observer, clear of the gravity well, an object sinking into the gravity well experiences time dilation. Conversely an observer in a gravity well will observe a distant object's time appear to speed up. This gravitational time differential predicted by GR, verified experimentally and used in every GPS, is not encountered just in the vicinity of black holes, but also our sun and even between earth orbit and surface. The only difference is that at a black hole's event horizon, a far observer will 'see' ( if he could see loonger and longer wavelengths approaching infinite, of light ) the infalling object time dilation approaches infinite, ie time appears to stop at the event horizon to a far observer. This is purely based on the chice of reference frame, however, since an infalling object or person, sees no slow-down in their subjective time. They see them selves continue through the event horizon with no slow down or stopping, just as we on the surface of the earth don't see a time slowdown compared to astronauts. As has been mentioned before light always travels at c, and so light is not trapped inside the event horizon, unable to escape. Rather the infalling light ( or alternately any light emitted by the interior 'structure' of the event horizon ) is red shifted to infinitely long wavelength and so cannot be seen or detected. It is this absence of any visible emissions which give rise to the term black hole, its not really a hole in space.

Welcome back AJB, it's been a while.

I still remember the HOTOL, Sanger and forget the name of the French concept, for a reuseable launch vehicle in the closing years of the last century. Shuttle type launch vehicles became a maintenance nightmare and used technology from 1980 ( intel i286 processors ?? ). New technology would solve a lot of the problems and make them a viable choice rather than going backwards with the Ariane ( or Russian ) launcher.

No apologies necessary. As you've no doubt noticed, I have bad days too and tend to snap at people. Forgive, forget and move on.

You said "Does this help ?" and I said "Not really." , for the reasons that I explaned. One surface, wing or sail will not have a force component at an angle less than 90deg to the incident airflow no matter what the geometry ( ? ). So, yes, I did think about what you said, but it made no sense. If you aren't prepared to explain, or don't know, just say so and I'll research it myself.

The quasar IS the black hole's polar jets. Only 'active' black holes have accretion discs, which is mass spiralling and infalling along the black hole's plane of rotation. This superheated ionized plasma generates elecromagnetic radiation, usually very energetic gamma rays, at angles perpendicular to the plane of rotation ( along spin axis ). Galactic core black holes, when active, generate tremendous amounts of energy by this method, rivalling the intensity of billions of stars and outshining galaxies. Active galactic cores were more common billions of yrs ago, they have mostly settled down in current times. Neutron stars have similar effects, but because of the lower energies involved, produce x-ray polar jets and we call them pulsars.

Not really. Using simple vectors you can show that a lifting surface, sail or wing, has no component in the direction of its motion, ie. into the wind. Otherwise you could use a wing for propulsion. I've been told, by sailors, that it has to do with sail/keel interplay but I've been too lazy to actually investigate the phenomenon.

Given a gravitating mass and a radius you should be able to determine the acceleration due to gravity, Airbrush. Its simple Newtonian gravity and it does not change as you approach, reach or pass through the event horizon. Work it out for youself, I believe the absent DrR worked it out in another thread. The energy to accelerate a given mass is supplied by the gravitating body ( conservation laws remember ? ). The infinite energy needed to accelerate a body with mass to light speed would have to be supplied by an infinite sized black hole. Do you see where your argument falls apart ?

You seem quite knowledgeable on the subject. Is the interaction between the keel and the sail responsible for the ability of a sailboat to tack against the wind ? I could never understand how that was possible.

I think we may be stuck in a causality ( time ) loop, We keep having the same discussion over and over with the same result.

The timelines are very specific because they occurr at the times of symmetry breaking of the early universe when the original force of GUT and electroweak split into today's strong weak and EM forces. These two symmetry breaking events take place at very specific energies and so the time can be derived.

You may be right about these differences, but consider then the vertical stabilizer on an aircraft. It has a symmetric rounded leading edge/ sharply pointed trailing edge to which all my coments apply. A lot of aircraft wings are symmetric these days, especially any that spend any time dealing with supersonic flow, they generate lift with leading and trailing edge flaps and other devices, and angle of incidence. Even subsonic airliners or business jets can have locally supersonic flow over the top of the wing under certain conditions.

Don't know much about boat keels, but have a keen interest in jet fighter design/aerodynamics. The leading edge of a wing , and keel I would imagine, have to be able to deal with differing angles of incidence and present the same face to the airflow/waterflow while the trailing dge not so much ( due to flow laminarity ). A rounded profile helps with this and is used, at least at low speeds, at hi speed the reduced drag of a sharp leading edge takes precedence. The wing profile described by Enthalpy is commonly known as a supercritical wing and is used subsonically to improve lift/drag ratio.

The only reason Shroedinger's wave mechanics formulation became dominant in the late 20s over Heisenberg's matrix formulation and Dirac's 'algebraic' formulation is that it was more familiar to the physics community and in a way closer to classical thinking. The modern quantum field formulation has associated particles with it, but wave-particle duality is a misnomer. The case may be that it is neither particle or wave, it is just our mathematical model which is limited.

The creation of 'present day' photons from pair annihilation occurred after the inflationary period. Just about all these photons are still around today.

The 'seeds' for large scale structure formation such as galaxies and clusters, were the Quantum fluctuations ( due to the uncertainty principle ) present before inflation. The process of inflation 'smoothed' large scale features, like curvature, and enlargened small scale features like Q fluctuations so that after inflation had subsided, mass could start accumulating around these gravitational 'seeds'. Galaxy and cluster formation proceeds bottom up, not top dowm.

I don't think there's any danger of your idea being stolen.

Well the gravastar paper is even more far-fetched than black holes ever were. Self gravitating magnetic monopoles with charge g ??? Monopoles are the unicorns of particle physics, and if inflationary big bang theory is correct, then only few would have been created on the boundaries of broken symmetry areas. Or are these different monopoles ( how many can you have ??) ? And would g then be the elementary quantum of gravitation ?? As for your second link, I haven't heard that explanation for black holes since Landau and Zel'dovich used to call them 'frozen stars' in the 50s before John Archibald Wheeler coined the term 'black holes' which has nasty connotations in Russian. It is easily explained by the proper choice of reference frame. In effect, an external observer sees time slow down and stop as an astronaut approaches the event horizon, but the astronaut himself notices no such slow down and stoppage, he continues through the event horizon to the possible singularity at regular time.

When Airbrush asks for alternative explanations he is referring to methods for stopping the gravitational collapse. For example as has been mentioned electron degeneracy resistance stops the further collapse of white dwarf stars, and neutron degeneracy resists further collapse of neutron stars. What is the mechanism for stopping the gravitational collapse of these Q-stars and gravastars ? And if Q-stars are quark stars their degeneracy resistance is equivalent to that of a neutron star I would think, but not being too familiar with QCD, the quarks that comprise neutrons may have energy levels and could sink to 'lower' energy leves. Even so, they would just be one more step on the way to black holes because eventually a star massive enough to overcome quark degeneracy resistance would gravitationally collapse ( such as the galactic centre sized black holes ). So like I said, don't give us fancy names, propose mechanisms that would stop gravitational collapse for ANY ( no matter how big ) star. Its like Chandrashekar vs. Eddington all over again.

There seems to be some confusing of the event horizon with the possible singularity as Penrose diagrams for spinning black holes may allow passage from one 'universe' to another without exceeding the speed of light. The 'theory' of black holes is just normal GR, which works quite well for all space=time except at the possible singularity. Arguments made against black hole 'theory' are arguments against GR, which by 2019 will have a century of verified predictions... Hardly speculation !!! I repeat, read Kip Thorne's book, It is easy enough to follow and will settle a lot of this discussion. He is , along with Hawking and Penrose, one of the world's leading experts on black hole theory. You may continue your arguments with him if you so wish.

If you are in free fall through the event horizon of a massive black hole like the ones found in the centres of galaxies, your body and space ship would undergo the same acceleration until very close to the possible singularity, well inside the event horizon. So I really don't see how your body would get smashed against the ship's floor. Do you know what freefall is or are you making this up as you go along ? Typical galactic centre black holes have masses of millions of suns and are therefore huge. Even travelling at the speed of light ( something you still cannot do inside the event horizon ) it would take some time to reach the possible singularity. Why don't you take this opportunity to try and figure out the radius of such a black hole and the time it would take to get close to the centre at realistic ( not relativistic ) speeds. The fact that you "personally, are interested in what happens to the atoms themselves, as they would also squash, and likely the electron clouds would fail, and nucleons would likely start ripping threw those electron clouds as atoms collapse and join the matter in what ever form it exists" at the possible singularity, is of no concern because it happens at close distances to the singularity. The other 90% of your subjective time spent inside the event horizon, you wouldn't even know it. Do some reading on black holes, I recommend 'Black Holes and Warped Space Time, Einstein's outrgeous legacy' by Kip Thorne, or would you rather keep making stuff up as you go along ? Again I have always stated large black holes, not walnut sized ones which would have appreciable tidal forces, but then again so would neutron stars at very close range

Charge is conserved by a black hole also, Questionposer, so if your logic was correct its field would not be able to esape the event horizon, but it does. However, some have theorized that mass, charge and angular momentum as well as entropy are conserved on the event horizon.

If you're familiar with Faynman diagrams draw some, keeping in mind that the photons are virtual and their own antiparticles, and that every allowed interaction is possible.

No, not even close. A QFT of gravity has too many infinities which cannot be gotten rid of ( renormalised ) away.