Iggy

If you're falling into the black hole (like the gas cloud) then you would not see Earth's beacon super sped up. To see things super fast you would have to hover just outside the event horizon. The closer you hover (static) to the horizon the faster Earth and the rest of the universe moves from your perspective. But, hovering static near an event horizon takes a lot of energy. Hovering infinitely close to the horizon means seeing the universe progress infinitely fast, and would require an infinite amount of energy to remain static against the pull of gravity. On the other hand, if you're falling into the black hole -- if you aren't static -- then time dilation isn't reciprocal. Earth will see the black hole beacon slow indefinitely, but the person falling in the hole does not see the Earth beacon speed up indefinitely.

The universe decelerated expansion for the first seven billion years or so. Initially the rate of expansion was extremely high. It slowed more and more until the onset of acceleration six and some odd billion years ago. Since then the rate of expansion has increased more and more. To visualize it, imagine a single galaxy that used to be quite close to us. It started out moving away from us very fast, but it was decelerating. If you look at the history of the speed between us and that single galaxy, the speed lessens over the first few billion years. At first it decelerated pretty quickly, like someone applying the brakes to that galaxy quite hard. Over time the rate of deceleration lessened (like someone letting up on the brake pedal) until the rate of deceleration hits zero (seven billion years ago) and that specific galaxy was just coasting away at a constant velocity. The rate of deceleration does not, however, stop at zero. It goes negative. 'Negative deceleration' means acceleration, and for the past few billion years the galaxy has increased its rate of recession more and more -- like someone pressing the gas pedal more and more. Another sticky point is that when cosmologists talk about the rate of expansion (in terms of hubble's law) they are talking about the current change in the current distance to the galaxy as it currently exists. We don't see the distant galaxy as it exists in the present, but we know it is there and we can model how fast it is receding from us, currently.

No. No quick or easy way to tell. There was a movie once where some writer postulated that prime numbers could be easily figured out. It was... the movie was... it was "Sneakers" I think. Anyhow, the plot of the movie is basically correct. If you can quickly solve prime numbers then you can crack internet encryption. You could bust into Wall Street. You could steal billions of dollars. Basically, asking "is this number easily figurative as prime", is like asking if you can break every information safe ever made. The answer is so far... no.

My God!

very length contracted, yes. Near the horizon, inches in Schwarzschild coordinates (which are static) correspond to miles in free fall coordinates. In other words, a static observer sitting just outside the horizon would measures inches between two radii, but the same distance is miles to someone in free fall in the same area. I'm pretty sure the horizon would be infinitely time dilated and redshifted to an outside observer regardless of the outside observer's motion. The situation is different for an observer at the horizon. They wouldn't see the universe infinitely blue shifted and infinitely sped up unless they applied infinite acceleration and remained static at the horizon, which of course they can't do.

You would never be able to see the waterfall (light canoes can't travel upstream so one could never get away from the waterfall), but essentially yes. The singularity approaches with greater speed Light always travel c relative to local, flat, freefalling coordinates. The extreme mass of the star is the reason space flows radially so fast. I'll quote that site again...

In flat space, free fall coordinates, spacetime is flowing toward the singularity at the Newtonian escape velocity. At the Horizon space flows at the speed of light (I think Md made reference to that). You can think of it like a river. Let me quote a site: Both the light and the observer are moving along in the current. Light is further down stream and he is paddling as hard as he can against the current, but the water is moving faster than he can paddle and he continues down stream. Catching up to him is the observer who is further up stream, but who is making no effort to paddle against the current. They approach each other and they approach the singularity.

They go unnamed not because there are so few, but because there are too many. Conservation of energy is such a basic and fundamental element of physics that it affects nearly every dynamic, thermodynamic, and quantum mechanic problem there could be. If it were wrong then we would get the wrong answers for nearly everything... the velocity of a cannonball -- the photoelectric effect -- the energy needed to compose or decompose molecules -- how much more pizza can I expect to eat without loosening my belt another notch? In exactly the same way that general relativity predicts the perihelion precession of mercury, conservation of energy predicts the moon's recession rate

The Euclidean metric that your game uses is different from the Minkowski metric -- for example, you mention a sphere... if you specify an origin point in your game and tell the engine to paint everything red that is exactly one meter away from that origin point then you would end up with a red sphere. All of the points in space that are one meter away from an origin make a sphere with a radius of one meter. In Minkowski space, however, the same procedure makes an open hyperbolic surface (not a sphere). Likewise, if you have an object (a light bulb let's say) in the game at position x,y,z and you tell the game to *only* illuminate objects that have zero distance from the bulb (everything that has zero distance from the bulb gets illuminated) then nothing but the bulb itself would be illuminated. In Euclidean space, distance zero from x,y,z just makes a point at x,y,z. In Minkowski space, distance zero from x,y,z makes a cone. Objects intersecting the cone would be illuminated. So... if you want to visualize Minkowski space in the game you'd essentially be embedding a hyperbolic plane in a 3D cartesian coordinate system.... The hyperboloid model here would be a good place to start surfing. have to use something like the Hyperboloid model to get the metric of the one to work in the other. to paint everything blue that has a distance of zero from that point then nothing but the point itself would be painted blue.

I know what you mean. It seems to me that your reasoning would hold if you were static (your distance to the singularity were constant over time) As it is, you fall toward the singularity faster than light falls toward it (if the light is pointed away from the singularity). If you could stand on the event horizon and dip your hand under then you wouldn't be able to see your hand. Likewise, if you could stand static anywhere inside the EH then you wouldn't be able to see any event closer to the singularity than you. But as you fall light leaves your hand and your eyes catch up to the light because light pointed away from the singularity falls less fast than your eyes. If you're trying to observe an event inside the event horizon and it is closer to the singularity than you then you will be closer to the singularity than the event when you eventually see the light from the event, but you can see it.

That's my point. These two statements are mutually exclusive: All motion is relative The street is static (not moving) People are perfectly able to know the first while believing the second in everyday practice. You see... this all got started when science4ever said, You then said, John later said "no". it is impossible. I disagree with you both. I didn't give the best example using relativity, but I think people both can decide to believe something they know isn't true (it is possible), and that it is not usually a sign of mental illness. I think that is how the brain works more often than we know. There's a french saying that goes, je sais bien... mais quand meme, which sort of says what I mean. "I know very well, but anyway..."

Again, my example involves someone walking down the street. Your creation of a different scenario in response is indeed a strawman, but I don't care. I don't go around accusing people of strawmanning in every post like a child. I'll go ahead and take your scenario and prove to you that your statement, in context, is technically incorrect and factually wrong. Assuming you're sitting in a chair... With general relativity, using Lemaitre coordinates, neither you nor the street are static right now. You are far from it. It wouldn't be a good enough approximation to get the job done. In Schwarzschild coordinates you are pretty close to static. It could be close enough to get the job of sitting on a chair done. If your quote is true then Lemaitre coordinates are wrong, but according to GR no set of coordinates are any more true than any other. Lemaitre coordinates are actually more complete than Schwarzschild, so you know for a fact that your statement is wrong according to the best scientific theory we have. Yet you continue to believe... proving my point. People know things while believing differently all the time.

No, when you're walking down the street you are moving relative to the street. That is technically true. "the ground is static" is technically not true (it assumes an absolute frame... and a lot of people know that), but they believe it in everyday practice anyway. That was the example I gave originally before you started trying to prove a different point. Saying "From my point of view the ground actually is static [as I walk]" is absurdly factually wrong. In your frame, you are static. From your POV, you are static and the street moves. Sounds fantastically complicated

Sorry, Mr. Sutton. We were on the subject of illusions and delusions, and there your name was, so it just flew out. The only thing I meant by it is that scientists, who should be innately skeptical, should approach the issue more like you have done. That is... it should be easier to accept that beliefs in the human mind (in any human mind) often have very little to do with fact or knowledge. It doesn't make a person broken in and of itself. It is usefulness that determines if a belief is broken or not. If a person believes that they can fly so they keep jumping off their roof, then that's broken. On the other hand, if you believe that the street is static, and you are moving as you walk down it (technically not true) that isn't a broken belief. It gets the job done. It gets a person down the street. If religion enriches lives, constitutes culture, and benefits survival then it is not broken. If it destroys lives, culture, and survival then it is very broken. When talking about how broken a belief in god is or is not... that is the metric by which the thing has to be judged. Just saying that God is factually wrong (and knowledgeably so) therefore belief in such a thing makes a person broken isn't a good argument... but one that has gone around. Everyone's knowledge contradicts their beliefs. It is human nature. I shouldn't have called you out specifically for that.

By the way, I can play that game better than you. The ground is static in your frame of reference? Yes?...??? In GR you can accept that the ground is static beneath you, but that is one of any number of coordinate systems, none of which you can say is true. If lemaitre coordinates are right, then you best accept that nothing like you is static. I can relate to Popcorn Sutton. At least he knows that his beliefs lack some kind of validity. But, what are you doing? The schizophrenic has said "wait, are we sure?", and, you, the scientist has said, "we're quite sure". Those two positions should be reversed.

k

You aren't a butterfly and people fool themselves. Ok? ok.. I really am stepping out now.

Saying that everybody believes things that they know is wrong doesn't imply that I believe you're a butterfly, now does it? You're playing the fool, and I know very well that you aren't one.

Then I welcome you to a different Latin phrase. It goes 'res ipsa loquitor'. It means that the thing speaks for itself. Asking for evidence that people fool themselves. Jesus Christ! Do you need a few billion affidavits? edit: thinking that you're a butterfly is a delusion. Believing in God is an illusion. Believing that the ground is occasionally static beneath your feet just makes you human. People keep two sets of books. We all do it. Nobody is so spock-like... so literal minded, that they don't. You know this. It isn't something worth arguing.

The answer to that is yes. I'm exactly that lazy. I'm actually more lazy than that. I was too lazy to read the latin part of your post, so I did miss that. It sounds interesting though. Let me look it up... No... no, no. It's a kind of butterfly. That's the latin name for a kind of butterfly. Wiki says it's a white butterfly. Why are you talking about butterflies? Honestly, I'm at a complete loss here. What are you doing?

Ok, John. Clearly neither of us thinks that everybody who goes to church is mental. We're on the same page. I don't know why you're trying to argue with me. Believing things when one knows otherwise is a sign of humanity. You are doing it right now. And I don't know what cabbage white butterfly even means. You're trying to wrestle a strawman. I'm going to step out of the way.

Yeah. We're arguing as strawmen. Yep. Go ahead and show me where I said that. Go ahead and quote that. Strawman indeed. What are you doing?

edit... ok... everything I just said is inappropriate. I'm just as willing to make "yes" an inappropriate and dirty word as anyone else, but in this case, it really isn't.

Oh, yes. Yes! I tired to type out some kind of agreement. I tried to agree in words, but it's too much to agree with. You said exactly what I meant and quoted Bertrand Russel in the process, whom I absolutely love. yes. YES! stick around, please. I couldn't read enough of what you have to say.

You want me to cite evidence of what other people believe? Ok... I can only try to dissuade you from your belief that all church going folk are insane by telling you that that I've been there, as have my many good friends... and we aren't crazy. Thanks. Some of the most rational and sane people I've met were at church. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your recent 47 year narrative, but it is quite true. Revisit my post to which you are responding. I said "If it is broken, then broken we are". Misses the point How old, again?