beecee

As did I, despite not having much hair left. Seriously though, thanks to all in this informative discussion.

Perhaps my main problem is putting too much faith in the river analogy? https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2830526 With this analogy, the EH is "flowing" at "c" and increases inside. Like a fish [photon of light coming from an astronauts feet] swimming upstream at 5kms/hr, against a current [spacetime within EH] falling at 10kms/hr, it aint going to make any headway. https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

I'm still not happy with the descrepancy in answers given. 🤔

The rest of your post has been wisely and factually dealt with as technobabble. The above of course being the ravings of a known writer and supporter of Christian/Catholic apologetics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

As yet you have not shown any evidence for that nonsensical claim, among your other speculative claims. Even though you are in speculations, I believe you are still required to show evidence of your speculative ideas.

My limited understanding has me agreeing with MigL, for whatever that's worth. Agree with that particularly getting more complicated with the Kerr metric, where we have two EH's and two photon spheres each orbiting in opposite directions.

OK, let's first understand that I am absolutely no expert on BH's and SR/GR, but have read a fair bit. I still see some disagreement here as to what exactly happens, but I have heard and seen enough reputable sources to still insist as per I see it as per those members, but again, essentially I'm here to learn, and if I have misunderstood something, then I would like it cleared up. I understand and agree with that. And I would add, that while a distant observer may never actually see anyone or anything actually cross the EH, ( just red shifted to infinity eventually fading from view) according to that person or thing doing the crossing, , it will cross the EH and head towards its eventual doom, depending on the size of the BH and the accompanied tidal forces. But also, both the observer and the person falling into the BH frames of reference, are valid. Can you explain this bit further in simple language? OK, I think I understand that...from your link: "Light beams aimed directly outward from just outside the horizon don't escape to large distances until late values of t. For someone at a large distance from the black hole and approximately at rest with respect to it, the coordinate t does correspond well to proper time". But I must ask why? for some clarification. Please go easy with me...treat me like a virgin if you will. 😊 I'm only a poor old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder.

My understanding is as the two members above. Once inside the BH's EH, all paths lead to the singularity, so a person falling in feet first would not get to see his feet. I'll throw something else in for debate...light/photons that are emitted just fractionally this side of the EH? All that light/photons not emitted directly radially away from the EH, will eventually arc back to fall into the BH. But any photons emitted directly radially away will always remain just outside the EH, never falling in and never quite getting away. Perhaps some info here may help.....https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/index.html In actual fact, things probably get more complicated as realistcally any BH would be a Kerr type.

Not really....The BB/Inflationary model of the evolution of the universe, tells us how the universe/space/time evolved from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. It then explains how our first fundamental particles arose (phase transitions and false vacuum) the formation of atomic nuclei at about 3 minutes post BB, then our first light elements at about 380,000 years post BB. Gravitational collapse after that point, explains the creation of stars, planets etc. We are as yet only able to speculate about that first 10-43 second from whence our universe evolved. But some reasonable explanations are available which do not require any pre-existing BH.

The observed acceleration of the expansion rate would see any recollapse or big crunch as unlikely...We would seem more likely to see something akin to a "Big Rip" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

In many hundreds of trillions of years hence, the universe will have decayed. Based on current knowledge, BH's will be the last thing to decay via Hawking Radiation. Again as previously mentioned a BH is not an all purpose vacuum cleaner. The best example given was that if our Sun should magically become a BH, we would need to squeeze the current mass into a diameter of around 6kms. If that happened, only matter that came within 3 kms of the EH of the 6km diameter BH, would be lost to this BH...that is 1.5 Schwarzchild radius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future Another valid point that should be made is that any one that denies the existence of BH's, would then need to explain in another way the incredible evidence that we have for them.

I don't know why you come here, but I come here to ask questions when I need to, and listen,and learn in as many branches of science I can.... I am also aware that any new scientific knowledge, or theory, is very very unlikely to start and/or develop in forums such as this or any other science forums. Anyone that thinks so, in my opinion, are suffering from delusions of grandeur...particularly the branches of science that the cranks like to argue against and/or outright dismiss, like SR/GR for example.

Damn, damn damn!! That deserves more then one like. We need to change the rules!! Among many great conclusions of fact in an excellent post, the above stands out.

I'm sorry to hear that. I understand that the universe does not give a stuff, about some life existing on a fart arse little blue orb, orbiting a yellow dwarf star, in the outer arm of an average spiral galaxy, consisting of 400 billion other stars, most with planets orbiting them, in an observable universe of countless other galaxies, and immeasurable distances and size. Your philosophy has fails fails on that score. Certainly life would exist without science, but what sort of life would it be? We'd still be swinging in the trees. Science is seen in organized thinking as we evolve, and improving our lot. I view your link as philosophical as distinct from scientific. I'll make a deal with you....you see how your life eventuates without science of any description, and I'll see how mine eventuates without such philosophical concepts. That doesn't mean of course that I will disregard any of the worthwhile conventional principals that most adhere to in any civilised society.

Just been reading through this thread and I find some imo, excellent advice and replies to the OP. I havn't much to add, except that science and the scientific methodology is a discipline in eternal progress, as has been expressed by others, and that philosophical questions sometimes are not really relevant, or ever will be answered to the satisfaction of philosophers. In effect science asks and explains how...philosophers ask why. For the OP, a short 7.5 minute video that I believe may help.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q and that I have shown many times. Other than that, my own non professional, amateurish views seem to align with the following answers......... All highlights by me. With the last quote, I'm rather pleased to be seen as the exception, in that my conventional formal education is non existent beyond high school and what we call in Australia, the Intermediate certificate of the fifties and very early sixties, and then appropriate trade certificates in Fitting, Machining and Welding. My always great interests in science, saw me keep up with general progress and revelations through reputable reading and forums such as this. I can offer nothing to the author of the OP of any real value, other then what I believe to be some of the wise, science based answers you have been given by others.

I'm not sure how you are allowed to post any of your nonsense in any of the sciences in actual fact. You obviously have a "not so hidden" agenda in all you seem to post, evident in the fact that most of that nonsense is shut down in time. The moderators are being extremely lenient with you.

Not really true. There are different sections for different scientific disciplines that are accepted mainstream science. There is also another section for hypothesis and ideas that are not accepted mainstream thinking, and those defending those ideas need to attempt to justify them there. Some ideas are silly, and some are literally bullshit, with the proponent obviously having a hidden agenda. I'm only an interested bystander also, interested in science and the scientific methodology. You have been offered some excellent advice with the following....

Australia switched to the metric system in all its forms including monetary in 1966. I'm reminded that while the USA did not do this, they did lose a Mars Climate Orbiter, because those in charge failed to convert critical measurements from fps system to the cgs system...a costly error.

Here is a Greek Angel, who I saw in concert in 1977 at the Sydney Opera House... Again...

In 1986 when I obviously wore a younger man's clothes, I climbed up on our roof one evening, with my pair of 7x50's, to get a better view of Haley's Comet. After 15 minutes or so, a Police wagon stopped out the front and I was waived down. They told me that some woman from the four story units opposite my house, had rung them up re a "peeping Tom". It was only my Mrs coming out that convinced them of my innocent intentions!

That's totally false and a fabrication to suit your personal agenda. History shows science of all disciplines to be in eternal progress when new evidence comes to light. It's not always immediate, but any new theory or model also needs to "run the gauntlet" as did the incumbent model. History is full of those examples.

You keep on ignoring the answers given to you. The reason why M31 and the MW are on collision was given in the third post to this thread. Plus of course the BB is supported by the four main cosmological pillars, which was also given. I don't see your approach to this subject as honest, sorry.

Stop avoiding the issue as well as questions and do what you have been asked...see NASA [ not some discussion forum where you have repeated your supposed incredulity] if you believe this is anything other then an absolute mundane non event. It is in fact, just that...a non event. Or as another seemingly sensible poster on that forum told you, concentrate on the incredible achievement with this landing as well as the others landings, something that strangely for someone denying pushing a conspiracy nonsense, you have yet even touched on. Why is that?

Apologies for any confusion Alex, I kept mentioning six or so previous landings, when it has been 9. NASA certainly needs for congratulations for the time and effort needed for such momentous difficult missions. After researching some of your previous hilarious claims of utmost certainty in other threads, I find it strange that you can ignore all the other mundane, everyday reasons for your trivial claim...you know, stuff like shadows of other landforms like mountains, hills etc, the colour and content of the soil, the vivid nature of light with refractive and reflective properties, and even the thin Martian atmosphere and content. The only certainty in this thread, is that you are flogging a dead horse, whatever that horse maybe. 9 landings old mate, and with examples of light phenomena in other examples also as I pointed out. Yeah, I think we can all move along now, nothing to see here.

Oh, sorry, I thought you said you had nothing more to offer this thread...not that you have offered anything at all in actual fact, other then examples of ignoring all the realistic mundane possibilities, contacting NASA for yourself for explanations, the fact that other landers have been photographed and recorded during landing phase, which you denied, and of course ignoring the facts that Perseverence has been on the surface for a number of days now, to keep the other landers and rovers company. Do you believe that is his agenda?😉 The ignorant based methodology he uses is certainly that of a conspiracist. Can you show us in detail your calculations for that bit of trivia claim? Actually the opposite, as you have simply ignored all other possibilities, and refused to contact NASA for an explanation as any self respecting, fair dinkum person would with any genuine query. Mars Landing Sites, Including Perseverance: This map of Mars shows the landing site for NASA’s Perseverance rover in relation to those of previous successful Mars missions. Full image and caption › https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/science/landing-site/