Strange

This (amazingly) is correct. However, once again, you have shown your unerring ablating to not answer the question. I did not ask about free neutron decay. I asked about your claim that a neutron star could "break down into electrons". Nope. Conservation laws. (Ignoring the gibberish of "enough photons in sync")

A neutron star cannot collapse to electrons because that would violate conservation laws. For example, neutrons are neutral and electrons have charge. What is "pure energy"? Energy is a property of things, not a thing that can exist independently. And how are electrons going to form (without violating conservation of charge, mass, lepton number...) The rest of that post is just your usual made-up nonsense. I was hoping you would take this as an opportunity to prove you are not trolling. The math was in the earlier black hole link, remember? [math] r_s = \frac{2 G M}{c^2} [/math] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Physical_properties It would be much more educational for you to work it out for yourself (I already did it when I checked the numbers while writing my reply earlier) But if you are too lazy, you can get Wolfram to do it for you: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=radius+of+black+hole+6.5+billion+solar+mass

Yes, they do. What with them being black holes and the physics of black holes being known for over 100 years. You have a bit of catching up to do. It is exactly as expected for a black hole of that mass. This is calculated using the equations for a black hole. Because it is a black hole. The maths is very simple. Why don't you check it yourself.

You can think of it as a rotation: as you get closer to the event horizon, the radial (spatial) dimension is increasingly swapped with the time dimension (hence time dilation). Inside the event horizon the centre of the black hole is now in your future. There are still three spatial dimensions, but one of them used to be time. I don't think anyone can really understand what that means in practical terms!

The volume of a black hole increases proportionally to the cube of the mass so the density goes down as the square of the mass. So the bigger a black hole, the lower its density. So, yes, for a supermassive black hole the (average) density can be less than water. (Note that density doesn't really mean anything because (a) we don't know how the matter is distributed inside the black hole and (b) the "volume" is not well defined: inside the black hole the radius is time!)

It says the "ring" is 700AU, so that is the accretion disk, not the black hole. The size of the black hole is about 38 billion km (254 AU), which corresponds to a mass of 6.5 billion solar masses. (Source: https://eventhorizontelescope.org) which is slightly less than had been estimated from previous observations.

That wasn't the reason for posting it. It was purely to show that a SMBH is a type of black hole. If you want the math (although why you would, when you have just been making stuff up so far) you would just have to follow the link to the black hole page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole (after all, SMBHs are just a type of black hole). No. It goes back to 1915. (See the History section of the black hole page) And yet you are not able to say what these differences are or provide a reference to them.

Then why did you introduce it? You know what SMBH stands for? SuperMassive Black Hole. So please provide a reference that SMBH are "not considered to be black holes". Which still says nothing about particles travelling "near the speed of light". Says the guy who posts a lot of unreferenced nonsense. Luckily, because I am posting facts, it is easy to provide a reference: "Sgr A* was discovered on February 13 and 15, 1974, by astronomers Bruce Balick and Robert Brown using the baseline interferometer of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.[19][20]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*) Although, to be fair, it wasn't confirmed to be a black hole until the early 2000s. Why? Here, as you are obviously unable to provide a reference that says an SMBH is not a black hole, here is one that says it is: "A supermassive black hole (SMBH or sometimes SBH) is the largest type of black hole" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole) Gibberish.

So it doesn't say anything about things moving near the speed of light? But you still haven't explained how this is relevant to black holes. You are still just making stuff up. That was nearly 50 years ago. How is this relevant to "SMBH have actually been discovered to have densities close to one"? The Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum theory in general, has absolutely nothing to do with current theories of black holes. And there is no difference between "black hole physics" and "SMBH physics". They are just black holes of different sizes. The only thing that affects the size of a black hole is its mass: the radius is directly proportional to the mass. This is just nonsense. This does not tell us anything about the INSIDE of the black hole. Did you not even look at the questions asked? This does not answer them at all.

I think a large part of the problem is that every mission has different requirements: the set of instruments to be included; the conditions it has to endure (temperature, pressure, corrosive); how it will land (eg. is there enough atmosphere to use a parachute, does it need rockets or airbags, etc.). A general purpose probe that could meet all possible requirements would be massively over-engineered for any of them (and therefore too heavy and too expensive). But for manned (or routine freight) flights, this is the sort of thing that companies like SpaceX and others are working on.

If it isn't a relativistic theory, then it does not accurately describe things moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. (Also, I don't believe this is an accurate characterisation of quantum mechanics. Based on your other statements, I should probably assume it is wrong.) What on Earth is the connection between the Pauli exclusion principle and cosmology? What? The density of a black hole is easy to calculate so I don't know what has "been discovered". (The concept of density is pretty meaningless, though.) And close to one what? Where is the evidence for what happens inside a black hole? It is very frustrating that you keep throwing more and more fantastic, and increasingly irrelevant, claims into the discussion but are unwilling/unable to provide any support for any of them. We know what it is. We are just trying to decipher your incomprehensible comments about it. Why not actually answer the questions asked.

No really. GR is a more general theory that effectively subsumes SR. But SR is still useful, in appropriate cases, as a much simpler model. But black holes re not a case where you can use SR. Quantum mechanics describes completely different phenomena than either SR or GR so I don't see how it can possibly be used instead. (And I don't know what "this problem" it is supposed to avoid.) Yes it has: it is called quantum field theory: "In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory) True. (Apart from the word "proven".) That is not what a "law" means in science. (It doesn't really mean anything; but theories don't become laws just because they have more evidence.) I don't see anything that says that the "Pauli Exclusion principal was discarded".

The Lorentz factor doesn't apply in this situation. You need to use the equations of general relativity. You mean: theories are supported by evidence. No "even". No "proof". Are there? Can you provide an example?

No they don't.

You are right that the concepts of "now" and "past" become complicated when we have to take the delays caused by the speed of light into account. But it isn't that much different from things that are more familiar. If you hear distant thunder (but don't see the lightning) you know that the lightning happened in the past and you were only "now" becoming aware of it. So when we look at the sky (stars and planets) as they are "now" were are seeing them as they were at various times in the past (depending how far away they are). You could create a map of the stars showing where they "really" are now but it wouldn't be terribly useful and, given the distances and speeds involved, wouldn't look much different. (Unless Betelgeuse really has exploded.) But, it gets even more complicated than that. Because we know from the theory of relativity that different observers see time passing at different rates (because of their relative speed or the effects of gravity) and so not everyone agrees what "now" is. What might be in the past for some people might be in the future for others.

Yes, you are right. I have it the wrong way round. Accelerating expansion means that galaxies will disappear over the cosmological horizon.

You don't need to know the masses of the Earth and Sun to confirm Newton's theory. It is more than a hypothesis. You need to look up the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory". The predictions of this model are supported by evidence, so it is a theory, not a hypothesis. Actually, we can. Don't let your ignorance of the evidence fool you into thinking that there isn't any. This is why it is so important to have a really good education in the subject before making up your own "theory" (not a theory. or even a hypothesis.) Yep, that is how science progresses. (Not by people making things up.) No one believes that. So why make such a ridiculous claim? Physics. It may be incomprehensible if you don't know anything and, apparently, refuse to learn. But, to put it as simply as possible, different materials behave differently. I have no idea what the word "logic" is doing in this sentence. I think what you meant to say was: "After all, according to my complete lack of understanding, they should be built from almost one substance" So you are happy to criticise well-established science supported by mountains of evidence gathered over centuries (because you don't know about it) and yet you make up a model for the atom that has no basis in reality, and then try to invent a theory of gravity from that. You can't see a flaw in this approach? This is wrong in so many ways. Firstly, elementary particles and planets are not at all alike. Elementary particles are described by wave functions and probability; electrons are not little balls orbiting a solid nucleus. (Despite what a children's science book might have told you.) Secondly, we can measure things like the speed of light, etc. and know that they are universal constants. As the rest of your "theory" is based on these fundamental errors, I am not going to spend much more time on it. There was still no comparison of gravity and electromagnetism. (Using a different pronoun doesn't change that fact.)

Yes. Or it could happen for all sorts of reasons. But I don't see how Darwin and natural selection are relevant to that. So your answer appears to be exactly the sort of answer you are talking about: you are answering with something completely irrelevant to the question. Does this mean that your brain is not wired up answer questions with well-defined knowledge or logic?

It has always been expanding! (Well, since the earliest times we can observe. We don't know what happened before that. Maybe it collapsed from an earlier universe.) Actually, expansion doesn't affect the stars near us (in our galaxy). It doesn't even cause nearby galaxies - the Andromeda galaxy is heading towards ours and they will collide in a few billion years. There are galaxies so far away we cannot see them (so we just assume they are there). But I don't really understand your point about the past. When you look at anything in the sky, you are seeing it as it was in the past - the further away it is, the more in the past we see it. (This is because of the time it takes light to reach us.) For example, the star Betelgeuse is likely to explode into a supernova some time soon. It could even have already happened but we won't see it until the light reaches us, which will take 642 years. So when we do see it explode, we will be seeing what happened 642 years ago! No. The timescales are far too long. And, actually, I think that because of accelerating expansion (so-called "dark energy") the cosmological horizon is receding and so more galaxies will become visible. (But I could be mistaken about that).

It is not clear what the connection is between "collective processing" and Darwin / natural selection. Could you explain what they are supposed to illustrate? James Watt could not be credited with climate change. And there is no serious disagreement about the causes. When you post nonsense like this, it is hard to take the rest seriously.

You can't really disprove a theory with a vague thought experiment. The ESWW paper mentioned in your linked article is a highly mathematical analysis of the behaviour of the waves. This (it is claimed) shows that the waves are non-physical. But several other papers say that their analysis is wrong. Ultimately, it is only when people can produce a theory that can be tested experimentally that it can really be confirmed or ruled out.

I see no reference to tunnels in that article. Can you quote the text you are referring to?

It would have been clearer if you had provided that in your answer instead of pretending it was there all the time. Do you have a reference to experiments using "tunnels"?

Why does thus section seem to consist almost entirely of questions? How about answering the questions?

I would like to see a reference for that. (And "tunnels" ?) You have not provided a reference. (A link to a reputable source that confirms what you are saying.) The Wikipedia page on pilot wave theory has an entire section on how it explains entanglement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory#Quantum_entanglement,_Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen_paradox,_Bell's_theorem,_and_nonlocality (that is a reference)