Strange

So you say that space must be modelled mathematically. But you don't have such a model. Meanwhile, we do have mathematical models of space. So maybe we should just use those and ignore your vague and baseless claims? (I don't know how "t0" is relevant to any of this.)

But you haven't done that. Can you provide a reference to a mathematical model that treats space as "information"?

If people differ in things like eye colour because of genetics then, obviously, they will differ at the level of cells (or including neurons).

It never slowed down, so it will continue to increase in speed after it passes the event horizon. Form the external observers frame of reference, it ceases to be visible before it reaches the event horizon so the "frozen" thing is moot anyway.

Exactly. "Information" doesn't seem a very useful definition. Can you provide an example of a scientific theory that treats space as information? Does the bolded section mean that you are now saying that space is time?

Clever. But couldn't any property we measure (mass, energy, temperature, frequency, etc) be considered information?

Do you have any evidence to support this?

That is absolutely not the reason we can see it. See this thread for more information: ! Moderator Note Thread closed as we already have several threads on this topic

Wow. Superhuman powers. /sarcasm

A will is quite a good analogy, in some ways. You look into the well and all you see is darkness (the inside of the well is effectively outside the universe). You can't tell what happens to stuff that falls into the well. The odd thing is, as you throw more stuff in, the well gets bigger.

Doh. Of course. (I was thinking to myself as I typed, "but how does this relate to photons..." and my mind was completely blank!)

The wavelength is inversely proportional to mass. So a larger particle has a shorter wavelength. It gets increasingly difficult to do the experiment with larger particles because the wavelength gets too short. The largest particle that I know has been used in the experiment is a carbon-60 molecule (buckyball). But maybe people have gone further since then...

You need to take Q-reeus's comments with a pint of salt. He thinks GR is wrong and cherry-picks papers and articles that seem to agree with him. This, in particular, is not true. For one thing, there is no surface and so nothing to stop material falling in. And for another, the event horizon grows to encompass matter falling in so it wouldn't even appear to be "frozen" at the surface. You liked the statement that there can only be one reality and so, because from the point of view of matter falling into the black hole there is nothing to stop it, you can't have an alternative reality where it stops.

I’m afraid that is incorrect.

We are not that similar physically: there are big strong people, small fast people, etc. Different physical attributes are valuable for different tasks. The same is true (perhaps more so) for personalities. Say you want to build a house: you are going to need some "artistic" people with imagination to come up with interesting designs; you will want some of those to be more down-to-earth to ensure the designs are practical; then you will want some people who are more interested in detail and working things out to make sure the structure will be strong enough, how many bricks you need, how much it will cost; then you want some practical people who just like getting on with the job to actually build it. Creating a complex society requires even greater range of skills, interests and attributes.

That clearly depends on your position in 3D space and (to a tiny extent) your speed. The first has nothing to do with the theory of relativity, while the latter does.

! Moderator Note Moved to the Suggestions forum as it seems more appropriate. We do have such a rule. It can be hard to enforce when people flood the thread with cherry-picked articles (often from unreliable sources) that they claim are evidence for their idea.

It doesn't need an addition to GR. GR already describes how gravity propagates at the speed of light.

Several problems with this: 1. It doesn't work 2. You are assuming that change propagates at c instead of deriving it from the equation. 3. We already have equations that show how the effects of electric charge and gravity propagate at finite speed.

No. It is not relative. It is the same for all observers. You need to understand what terms like "invariant" and "relative" mean in the theory of relativity, not just as English words. Invariant means all observers will measure the same thing. The speed of light is invariant. Mass (rest mass) is invariant. Electric charge is invariant. Distances between events (locations in spacetime) are invariant. Relative (or observer dependent) means that different observers will measure different values depending on their state of motion, etc. Distance in space is relative. Time is relative. Energy is relative. Because the event horizon is a set of spacetime coordinates. (You keep using the word "absolute" but I don't know what that means in this context.)

You need to start from Maxwell’s equations: https://physics.info/em-waves/ As you can see, this shows that changes propagate at c. The same is true for gravity but the math is much more complex

The “theoretical need” is that you have specified that as the initial condition. So what. You can choose a frame of reference where either is stationary and the other is moving. Or where one is moving slowly and the other fast. Or both are moving in the same direction. All of these are equally valid descriptions. None of them is more “true” than any other.

! Moderator Note Do not hijack other people’s threads with your personal theory

You can't falsify a theory with calculations. You need evidence. And, so far, all evidence is consistent with relativity. Maybe you should read some ore modern texts (and look into more modern experiments) instead of being stuck in the past. Quantum field theory is based on special relativity and, as well as mountains of experimental confirmation, it has been used to develop many modern technologies. You have a lot of work to do if you want to show that more than 100 years of science and technology doesn't work.

Most people don't find that. Maybe you need to think about where the problem might lie. But feel free to leave.